PhillyArena Forums
PhillyArena Community => NBA Discussion => Topic started by: SPURSX3 on October 23, 2008, 08:08:08 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/obama.check/index.html
(CNN) -- A new Republican ad appears to suggest that Barack Obama has all but won the presidential race, an argument several vulnerable Senate Republicans may have to reluctantly embrace with only days until Election Day, an expert in campaign advertising said.
Aimed at Kay Hagan, Sen. Elizabeth Dole's surprisingly strong Democratic challenger in North Carolina, the 30-second spot from the National Republican Senatorial Committee warns voters against Democrats holding the White House and Congress, and flatly states that if Hagan wins, the party will "get a blank check."
"These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis, all branches of government," the ad's narrator states. "No check and balances, no debate, no independence. That's the truth behind Kay Hagan. If she wins, they get a blank check."
Committee Online Communications Director John Randall denied that the ad is suggesting that GOP nominee John McCain will lose out on the White House.
"The NRSC is not conceding a Barack Obama presidency," he said. "Fiscally irresponsible liberals like Kay Hagan are not the answer in these tough economic times and would only make things worse. Our ad was intended to highlight Hagan's many failings in light of the Democrats' promise to close debate should they control the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."
But with polls warning of a GOP bloodbath November 4, vulnerable senators in red states may have no other option but to suggest that Obama will capture the White House and warn that the Illinois senator needs to be checked by Senate Republicans. Watch more on the fight for battleground states ?
"They are basically painting the picture that the presidential race is over," said Evan Tracey of Campaign Media Analysis Group, CNN's consultant on ad spending. "Overall, people prefer divided government. This is that divided government argument: 'Don't hand sole control over to one party.' "
The GOP isn't aiming to regain control of the evenly split Senate but to ensure that Democrats don't reach 60 seats in the chamber -- the "magic number" that seemed unthinkable only a few months ago.
Should Democrats reach that number, the party could prevent Republicans from filibustering bills they oppose, and the GOP would be unable to block legislation they are against from going through.
The last time either party held such an edge was in 1977, when Democrats held 61 Senate seats and Jimmy Carter was president. It seems increasingly likely this year, with the economy flailing, the Republican brand in tatters and a Democratic presidential nominee who is causing extraordinary voter enthusiasm.
Vulnerable Senate Republicans in red states are hoping the doomsday scenario will cause enough independent-leaning voters to stick with them, even if they largely blame the GOP for the country's current conditions. Watch more on the GOP's troubles ?
"You're going to see it in a lot of places these last 10 days, where you have vulnerable Republicans, because ultimately survival instincts are going to take over here," Tracey said. "It's going to be less about whoever else is running and more about, 'How do I save myself?' "
Dole, once among the most popular figures in the GOP and head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2006, has become perhaps the most vulnerable of the red state Senate Republicans in what might be the clearest sign of the GOP's woes this election season.
But several other red state Republicans are under unexpected pressure as well, including Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens and even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
But the divided government argument may only further highlight McCain as a candidate who has already lost, even as the Arizona senator and his running mate head to a string of red states to convince voters that the race isn't over.
"There's risk for the party in this argument," Tracey said, "but people have specific mandates above the party mandates, and survival instincts are going to take over at some point."
-
You know, I like McCain, and I like Obama. But John's VP selection makes "W" look like he is "intellimagent." I CANNOT vote for John. No way. It was a horrible idea adding this person to his campaign ticket. >:( >:( >:(
-
You know, I like McCain, and I like Obama. But John's VP selection makes "W" look like he is "intellimagent." I CANNOT vote for John. No way. It was a horrible idea adding this person to his campaign ticket. >:( >:( >:(
I man-loved 2000 McCain. The current McCain is a sellout and Palin is a nutcase in the mold of Dubya.
I heard this election summed up nicey by the phrase: "The evil of two lessers".
-
I first heard that phrase in a Philadelphia Mayoral election, Frank Rizzo and WIlson B Goode back in the 80s...i liked it then, still do.
I think the republican party has forgot the notion of 'vetting' people. I mean Palin smelled like a pure panic move to me with no thought behind other then, oh look, she's a woman...she might be considered attractive by same, and she's a republican.
-
I first heard that phrase in a Philadelphia Mayoral election, Frank Rizzo and WIlson B Goode back in the 80s...i liked it then, still do.
I think the republican party has forgot the notion of 'vetting' people. I mean Palin smelled like a pure panic move to me with no thought behind other then, oh look, she's a woman...she might be considered attractive by same, and she's a republican.
Her looks had nothing to do with it.
She's a woman to insure "history" would be made. I think there is a "historic" factor in this election that will cause more voters to go to the polls and make a pull for "history". Palin as the first woman VP neutralizes the Obama "historic effect".
She's hard core pro-life and McCain has "exceptions" in his pro-life stance. This shores up the support from their base.
She's hard core Christian conservative and McCain WAS not in the past. McCain was very open and level headed about his position regarding religion and government but IMO he's given ground on this issue. Again, this shores up support with their base that was not too supportive durring the primaries.
She was considered an "outsider" but it turns out she's knee deep in the "pork barrel good ole boys" club.
Those reasons, IMO, are why they under-vetted Palin, she had a shinny exterior that blinded them to the empty head behind the "bling".
-
Palin as the first woman VP neutralizes the Obama "historic effect".
Why? Cause Geraldine Feraro wasn't a real woman? The republicans got stupid and paniced, to me it seems like every move they've been making for a while has been panic.
And it's not like I"m pro-obama, i think he is woefully underqualified to be a presidential candidate, but still find him a better option than McCain
-
Palin as the first woman VP neutralizes the Obama "historic effect".
Why? Cause Geraldine Feraro wasn't a real woman? The republicans got stupid and paniced, to me it seems like every move they've been making for a while has been panic.
FYI, Feraro didn't win, Fritz and Tits went down in flames. Regardless of which party wins the election, history will be made. That is my point.
-
Okay, WOW, that's the first time I've heard Mondale and Ferraro refered to as "Fritz and Tits."
The fact that this is literally the first time I've heard that is just plain sad, because that's freakin' hilarious!
-
It looks to me like it is over. McCain has nothing going for him, no argument or reason why he'd be the better candidate. The Repbulican party is accusing Obama of being a socialist and all kinds of other nonsense, because they have nothing else to say!
The Republican faithful are buying into all the nonesense- he's friend with terrrorists, he will be seen as weak by foreign leaders, etc. etc. but the Polls make it clear that the country is fed up with the direction and blame Bush and the Republican party.
Frankly, whoever wins may regret getting the job, the US is in for a very tough time in the next few years as the economic unraveling and faltering economy give way. McCain would probably die within a year simply from the pressure and demands of the job. I don't think the country would be comfortable with "Caribou Barbie" as president. Obama being young and intelligent has a better shot at dealing with the issues, but it would be a daunting challenge for anyone.
All the Republicans can do is fan the flames of fear, but nothing that they do withstands scrutiny, which is why they have no shot. "Tax and Spend Liberals" worked with Regan but that was almost 30 years ago and since that time, every Republican administration has expanded the deficit and every Democratic administration has lowered it. Cheney even said deficits don't matter! Only very loyal Republicans will vote their party this year, I'm afraid it will be pretty embarrassing for McCain.
Poor John, I just think he's out of his depth. He tries to portray himself as a strong leader, but to me he comes across as a complete phony. This could be my bias, but it is the way I see him. Not the crunchiest chip in the bag!
-
Palin as the first woman VP neutralizes the Obama "historic effect".
Why? Cause Geraldine Feraro wasn't a real woman? The republicans got stupid and paniced, to me it seems like every move they've been making for a while has been panic.
FYI, Feraro didn't win, Fritz and Tits went down in flames. Regardless of which party wins the election, history will be made. That is my point.
I thought your point was that picking Palin was historic, because it didn't guarantee much anything else, and thus it's not a history making pick and it probably screwed McCain more than if they had picked a qualified candidate and vetted them properly.
It seems, has it always been so and it's just getting coverage, that these national elections seem to come down to three states (PA, OH, FL) most times....is it just that it's getting coverage or is this a new thing?
-
Frankly, whoever wins may regret getting the job, the US is in for a very tough time in the next few years as the economic unraveling and faltering economy give way. McCain would probably die within a year simply from the pressure and demands of the job. I don't think the country would be comfortable with "Caribou Barbie" as president. Obama being young and intelligent has a better shot at dealing with the issues, but it would be a daunting challenge for anyone.
I am more anti-Democrat than I am pro-Republican but that is the same conclusing I came to months ago which is why I'm voting for Obama. I'm tired of having a president that is dumb, time for a change even though I am very hesitant about my choice.
-
Palin as the first woman VP neutralizes the Obama "historic effect".
Why? Cause Geraldine Feraro wasn't a real woman? The republicans got stupid and paniced, to me it seems like every move they've been making for a while has been panic.
FYI, Feraro didn't win, Fritz and Tits went down in flames. Regardless of which party wins the election, history will be made. That is my point.
I thought your point was that picking Palin was historic, because it didn't guarantee much anything else, and thus it's not a history making pick and it probably screwed McCain more than if they had picked a qualified candidate and vetted them properly.
It seems, has it always been so and it's just getting coverage, that these national elections seem to come down to three states (PA, OH, FL) most times....is it just that it's getting coverage or is this a new thing?
No, my point was that in picking Palin history would be made by either party. Had McCain picked someone safer then only the Demo's could make history with a black guy becomming President. With Palin on the ticket both parties will make history if they win. But I agree it was a short sighted pick because of how dumb she has come off and her history but it did address some critical holes in McCain's campain.
-
My problem with McCain isn't dumb, I don't think he's dumb, but he seems pretty obstinant and stubborn. He also seems to have a listening issue in terms of listening to those who know more about a subject than he does. He seems a bit out of touch with the 'majority' of Americans on things that matter, and rightly or wrong the 'never used the internet' thing is just weird
-
My problem with McCain isn't dumb, I don't think he's dumb, but he seems pretty obstinant and stubborn. He also seems to have a listening issue in terms of listening to those who know more about a subject than he does. He seems a bit out of touch with the 'majority' of Americans on things that matter, and rightly or wrong the 'never used the internet' thing is just weird
I agree about McCain's stubborness, it's what makes Bush so dangerous. I disagree about the internet and computer BS. McCain was able to land a jet fighter on an aircraft carrier at NIGHT! I'll take that ability over HTML geeks any time.
But McCain is too dangerous and out of touch with America, let alone the world. I'd vote for Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot or Osama Bin Laden before I vote Republican this year.
-
McCain was able to land a jet fighter on an aircraft carrier at NIGHT! I'll take that ability over HTML geeks any time.
You're follow up statement however about being 'out of touch' - i'm not talking about technilogical knowledge (your 'html geek' insult aside), the internet is used by the majority of americans who have no idea how it works but McCain says he's never used it....never. That to me would mean no emails, no web searches, no nothing...how can a politician be in touch if not using the most available and modern technologies to facilitate that 'being in touch'. I'm not asking the guy to build web sites, i'm asking that the guy use email or a web browser every once in a while.
I personally have never seen a republican candidate I would consider voting for since most of them seem hung up on the 'family values' 'america a-ok' 'more guns the merrier' nonsense that drives me crazy.
Though if Colin Powell had ran I was willing to consider him...before he agreed to work for the dumbest president in my life time
-
You're follow up statement however about being 'out of touch' - i'm not talking about technilogical knowledge (your 'html geek' insult aside), the internet is used by the majority of americans who have no idea how it works but McCain says he's never used it....never. That to me would mean no emails, no web searches, no nothing...how can a politician be in touch if not using the most available and modern technologies to facilitate that 'being in touch'. I'm not asking the guy to build web sites, i'm asking that the guy use email or a web browser every once in a while.
He didn't say he doesn't use it, he says he's computer illiterate. That is not a big deal, most people are computer illiterate, that's the whole reason we have Windows and Apple computers. I'm not holding that against him, who needs a computer when you have 1,000 people at your beckon call.
I personally have never seen a republican candidate I would consider voting for since most of them seem hung up on the 'family values' 'america a-ok' 'more guns the merrier' nonsense that drives me crazy.
I voted for Bush in 2000, didn't think much of Gore and didn't know enough Bush at the time. When I couldn't decide who to vote for a friend of mine said who would you trust with 10K of your money to hold for 4 years? I told him Gore would probably find and excuse not to give it back and Bush would HONESTLY lose or misplace it. I figured I go with the good intent/same results guy cause at least he was honest.
Though if Colin Powell had ran I was willing to consider him...before he agreed to work for the dumbest president in my life time
I would have voted for Powell in the past as well but now I would not because he's either just as stupid as Bush or just as slimely to back the Iraq war.
-
He didn't say he doesn't use it, he says he's computer illiterate. That is not a big deal, most people are computer illiterate, that's the whole reason we have Windows and Apple computers. I'm not holding that against him, who needs a computer when you have 1,000 people at your beckon call.
I've heard/seen some reports that while what you say might be true...when you factor in the 'demographics' of John McCain, he is an oddity/rarity in terms of his computer illiteracy...
-
Actually, I want to chime in on this.
I'm bothered by one thing about McCain: his vote on the bailout bill. That's all. Were it not for that, I'd probably be voting for him. (As it stands, Bob Barr is getting my vote.)
The idea that McCain "doesn't use the Internet" doesn't bother me at all. I'm reasonably sure he reads e-mail, but truth of the matter is that he probably doesn't consider e-mail the same as "the Internet." Probably reads a newspaper or two online. Doesn't consider that "the Internet."
Colin Powell, in his endorsement of Obama, put something out there that you have to remember when you're talking about McCain; Powell stated that it's time for a generational change, and to be honest, he's probably right. But what you need to take from that (in reference to this post) is that McCain - and his statements - reflect an older generation.
When McCain says he's never used the Internet, he's likely talking social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, chat rooms, online banking, Wikipedia, web searches for information, YouTube, and E-bay - because, folks, to a person of his generation, that's what "the Internet" means. The world you and I live in an entirely different world - and the fact that we look at this as "everyday" shows how out-of-touch *WE* are. Saying McCain is out-of-touch on this topic is nothing more than e-culture elitism.
That's right; WE are the elitists, thinking that "our world" is the typical. A signficant portion of the people won't use any of the things I've listed up there, because they are irrelevant to the person's daily life. They work for a living in a factory or retail store or even a garage or farm. They go home at night to their family. They use a telephone to talk to their friends, if they don't see them while they take their kids to whatever the nightly school event is. They turn on the TV for their news and entertainment. They go to the bank; maybe they use an ATM card, if they trust them. They mail their checks to pay their bills.
Consider this: I'm *IN* the technology field. I'm also one of the last holdouts of the "old school" BBSes, before making my way onto the Internet proper in 1997 - roughly three years after the craze really started. I'm also one of the folks who was as skeptical about the "information superhighway" as Clifford Stoll, in his book, "Silicon Snake Oil." I'm proud to say that I'm STILL that same skeptic. The Internet hasn't added to our lives as much as it's DISTRACTED from our lives.
I get my news online. I do online information retrieval, online commerce, online fantasy sports, and am even known to post a message here from time to time. I've got my own domain, my own mail server, my own web site. Even have it all running virtually.
And then I go and visit home.
My brother - never one to turn down technology if it makes things easier for him - has his satellite link-up, since he can't get high-speed internet any other way, living out in the country. He doesn't have time for MySpace or Facebook - and if he did, he probably wouldn't use them - preferring to keep his private life PRIVATE. YouTube is kind of cool, but that's about it. He'll use Google from time to time. But what is his real electronic experience?
Stock investment? He'll do that with a stock broker. Crop prices? He's got a specialized satellite receiver for that and for weather. News? Television and newspaper in print. Online friends? E-mail, but that's it. Banking? He goes to town for that. Purchases? Well, in a pinch, if he needs something specific for the computer, he might get it online. Run a Carfax report on a vehicle? Probably wouldn't have done it in the past; now gets his brother to do it for him. Find consumer recommendations on something? Talk to people who've got one.
And he's considered technologically up-to-date - even advanced - among his peers. Serves on the REA board. Has been asked to serve some other functions as well. In a lot of ways, a community leader.
In fairness, he uses the Internet for some things: filing flight reports when he takes the plane somewhere, the occasional google search. But in truth, he uses his COMPUTER more than the Internet. He keeps farm records. He has a music libarary. He scans family pictures and is starting to do video. He'll word-process a letter, and keep an electronic copy. He still runs cut-sheets for land-grading - which was actually his first big use of the computer. And, for his personal entertainment, he has the games that he really likes.
It's a different world, but one you don't see unless you open your eyes and look at it. There is life beyond the city, and while it's no life that I'd want to lead, it cannot be overlooked. And for years, I could say that my brother paid more in taxes than I made in a year. Once you're up and running - and out from under heavy debt - there's opportunity there.
Let me put it to you this way: How did we get stuck with George Bush?
All you have to do is look at a map of voting districts. Urban areas heavily favored Gore and Kerry - rural areas favored Bush. Gore preaches environment - TO FARMERS. Good luck with that one. Try telling a farmer not to use pesticide. Kerry was just as bad at relating to that group. Bush did ONE THING right during the campaign - he didn't tell these people how to live their lives. Zell Miller resonated with that demographic perfectly in the 2004 RNC speech; his ideas are TYPICAL approaches from both the South and rural America. That's why you saw Huckabee - who is most similar in his approach to rural America - start off strong in Iowa for the Republicans in this past primary season. Nothing - NOTHING - ticks these folks off more than urban snobbery. Obama - even though he's a "city boy" (which is not a racial comment) - understands rural America *FAR* better than either Gore or Kerry. You were somewhat likely to see a rural Democrat vote for George Bush, because Gore and Kerry came across as snobs. Clinton won some southern states because he DIDN'T come across as an intellectual elitist, even though he was probably a greater intellectual than either Gore or Kerry.
I grew up on a farm; I've lived in a city (either St. Louis or Columbia) for my career. There are notable differences in the people and how they act and react. "Independent," "socializing," and "community" mean ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS to each. I'd even argue that "family" and "friends" have different meanings. Let me give you an example.
You go to talk to a lawyer.
City perspective: I want the top-notch lawyer around. I want him to lay the case out, as it's likely to be seen, and what the likely outcome is. He's there to be my *expert*. I want him to be STRAIGHT-FORWARD.
Country perspective: I want a lawyer I know, who *I* think is good. Helps if I know his family, and what kind of people they are. I want him to advise me on what's the right thing to do, and I'll consider his *advice*. I want him to be HONEST, or even BLUNT.
Both points of view are valid, and there are bits of wisdom in each. I'm of the opinion that, as in most cases, you can get further fashioning your own wisdom from the best parts of each than you can by following either.
Well, I've drifted across several points, but in a round-about way, they're related. And I think this is part of the reason Missouri has always been a sort of litmus test for candidates; Missouri gone the way of the winner in every election but one - one Democratic Senator and one Republican one - notable Democrats and Republicans in the House. McCain resonates with a significant part of the population. His downfall is that he doesn't excite them. He's old - and while they respect age, they're not after elderly. He's conservative - but has a few things that just don't fit quite right. He's a bit of a maverick - but that's not necessarily a good thing when his views don't quite mesh with theirs.
Actually, this election, I will not be surprised to see Missouri go for McCain, but Obama win. But Missouri truly is a toss-up, I think.
-
I really don't care if John McCain was able to hack a linux box or unable to log into AOL. Pretty sure he can have an aide help him out on any tasks he struggles with. The guy is not a retard. That is just not his avenue to take to handle certain tasks. While we all think the Internet is the easier way to go to pay bills and look up directions not everyone feels that way. Since it is not the only way to do things it is not all that important. I think a bunch of geeky blog writers at places like Wired.com got fired up over nothing. Would John McCain really need to email to get something done if he was to win? No. Non-issue at face value....Though I think 'John McCain doesn't use the Internet' is a over simplified way to say that he is out of touch with the generation that will bloom while the next president is in office.
Joe you bring up a good point and something that those of us in the 'younger' generation who support Barack Obama echo. A number of people in their 20s have only been able to vote in 2 or 3 election cycles. In that amount of time they (or should I say we) have come to see that the older generations idea on the direction we should take as a country doesn't coincide with our own beliefs of what we vision 10-20 years down the line. While I would hope that a lot of my fellow 20 year olds would understand Barack Obama can't save the universe he is a type of person who represents a younger and different generation. This has a lot to do with why he is so strongly supported by the youth. This is also what causes the 'old' jokes and shots. Those are not meant to really be taken literally (like when I jab JoMal). Really I think a lot of people mean that he is out of touch with the younger generation when they say 'McOld' or whatever dim witted attempt at making a catchy nickname you heard this past month. The Republican party, whether right or wrong, is viewed as the old guard. The wrong way. Not everyone in the younger generation feels this way but a lot do.
One thing that also needs to be taken in mind is a lot of us were 80s babies or late 70s babies. We were young when Republicans were still fiscally conservative, actually successfully de-regulated business, and they helped direct America to be head and shoulders above everyone else on the global stage in many aspects. As we came of age in the late 90s and post Y2k we know Republicans at the highest levels to be war mongers, fiscally irresponsible, elitist, corrupt, and not speaking for the common American regardless how many times they reference Joe Six Pack or Joe The Plumber. The values that I hear older republicans cite when asked why they are Republican just do not exist in the top levels of the party anymore. Really everything in the last decade says otherwise.
-
The first president i clearly remember is Ronald Reagan
Didn't like him then, like him worse now that I understand how horrible he was...
-
Actually, I want to chime in on this.
Joe,
First off, I was of that same opinion regarding McCain but to think for one second that computers and the internet don't play a major role of every day American lives is not true. Back in 2000 I would completely agree, less than 30% of American households had a PC let alone the internet. In 2008 is has completely flipped, less than 30% of American households do NOT have a PC and the internet. It is very out of touch to not have some ability to get on a PC and the internet. Granted I don't want my commander and cheif wasting time on the net but he should now how to use it but if he doesn't I'm not going to hold it against him.
On your other "elitest" point. You are kidding yourself if you think that's what the problem with the Demo's and the "common man" American was in the last elections. 2000 the Republicans STOLD the election, Bush did not win the popular vote and his brother's state was the key to election and the MOST contraversial. In 2004 the Republicans became the RepuGlicans. Using red herring (gay marriage, terrorists win, Christian pandering) and swift boat tactics to win an elections has NOTHING to do with the Demo's being "snobby". Please don't try to sell that to anyone with a BRAIN Joe, it's insulting.
-
I really don't care if John McCain was able to hack a linux box or unable to log into AOL. Pretty sure he can have an aide help him out on any tasks he struggles with. The guy is not a retard. That is just not his avenue to take to handle certain tasks. While we all think the Internet is the easier way to go to pay bills and look up directions not everyone feels that way. Since it is not the only way to do things it is not all that important. I think a bunch of geeky blog writers at places like Wired.com got fired up over nothing. Would John McCain really need to email to get something done if he was to win? No. Non-issue at face value....Though I think 'John McCain doesn't use the Internet' is a over simplified way to say that he is out of touch with the generation that will bloom while the next president is in office.
Joe you bring up a good point and something that those of us in the 'younger' generation who support Barack Obama echo. A number of people in their 20s have only been able to vote in 2 or 3 election cycles. In that amount of time they (or should I say we) have come to see that the older generations idea on the direction we should take as a country doesn't coincide with our own beliefs of what we vision 10-20 years down the line. While I would hope that a lot of my fellow 20 year olds would understand Barack Obama can't save the universe he is a type of person who represents a younger and different generation. This has a lot to do with why he is so strongly supported by the youth. This is also what causes the 'old' jokes and shots. Those are not meant to really be taken literally (like when I jab JoMal). Really I think a lot of people mean that he is out of touch with the younger generation when they say 'McOld' or whatever dim witted attempt at making a catchy nickname you heard this past month. The Republican party, whether right or wrong, is viewed as the old guard. The wrong way. Not everyone in the younger generation feels this way but a lot do.
One thing that also needs to be taken in mind is a lot of us were 80s babies or late 70s babies. We were young when Republicans were still fiscally conservative, actually successfully de-regulated business, and they helped direct America to be head and shoulders above everyone else on the global stage in many aspects. As we came of age in the late 90s and post Y2k we know Republicans at the highest levels to be war mongers, fiscally irresponsible, elitist, corrupt, and not speaking for the common American regardless how many times they reference Joe Six Pack or Joe The Plumber. The values that I hear older republicans cite when asked why they are Republican just do not exist in the top levels of the party anymore. Really everything in the last decade says otherwise.
don't have a lot of time but...enough to free flow for a while.
I agree with a lot of what koast says here. Although it really is a generational difference as much as he thinks. This is what Powell was referring to when he said that the Republican party had lost its way. They are no longer fiscal conservatives. Thier "core" has become dominated by the evangelicals...mostly rural America and the deep South. Basically what Joe was describing. Just look at who Palin "resonates" with. And the fact that this die hard core sees her as the standard bearer for the next 4 years heading into the 2012 election is deathly for the party as the Reaganites built it. Social conservatives were a PART of the coalition; the base. That part has driven away the more moderates. Those moderates...as well as Democrat moderates...were ripe for McCain to grab. But somewhere he lost control and whoever is running the campaign convinced him to pick Palin. It was all downhill from there...constant attacks against Obama (which turned off the moderates); failure to set/detail any policy (another turnoff for the middle), then the hypocrisy issues (final straw for most moderates).
As I mentioned in earlier discussions I am most scared of Reid & Pelosi. My biggest wish for Obama is that he rises above petty partisanism and can lead the country. That he really stands up to the Dems in congress and works for a stronger America not Democratic revenge. That his Supreme Court picks are moderates and not flaming liberals. At this point I hope desparately that Republicans can hold onto 42-45 Senate seats.
-
The first president i clearly remember is Ronald Reagan
Didn't like him then, like him worse now that I understand how horrible he was...
Reagan was horrible?
And who was it that said Reagan had a vision and a mandate from the masses? Obama. And he was right. In that regard, he's a worthy successor to the legacy of Reagan, as I've said several times.
Reagan was EXACTLY what the country needed in the 1980's - a voice that said double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates were HORRIBLE. A voice that said America was a great country. A voice that said America wasn't going to sit on the sidelines, but assume a role of leadership.
Make no mistake, jemagee - we were floundering under Carter. As good of an individual man as Carter was and is, he was HORRIBLE as a President. Reagan righted the course of the country, and we really didn't alter that course until Bush Jr. Reagan was visionary and idealistic.
That's not to say he was without his mistakes. His tax cut theory about us being on the wrong side of the curve, and lowering taxes would increase tax revenue was - quite simply - wrong. He put us under a big debt so as to bankrupt the nation that we feared the most coming into his presidency, and left us feeling safe and secure. I look at his policy, and say that he ran up a debt, and expected us to get to paying it off once we had accomplished what we needed to, but we never bothered to do that.
And quite honestly, the hope I have for America is exactly the hope that Ronald Reagan spoke of.
In my lifetime, ONLY Reagan and potentially Obama have put forth that kind of hope.
I take it, jem, that you aren't old enough to remember the energy crisis, to remember gas prices when you had to pay double what was showing on the pump, the Farmer's Strike, the Iran hostage crisis, and the fear of nuclear Armageddon. I doubt you've seen double-digit inflation, unemployment, OR interest rates in your lifetime...and doubt you can imagine all three at the same time.
If that's the case, I can understand why you knock Reagan. You equate Bush Jr.'s "conservativism," deficit, moral push, patriotism, securing the nation, and "cowboy diplomacy" with Reagan's. I can safely say that what Bush has offered us is the ultimate corruption of each and every one of these ideals. Conservativism in Reagan's day meant less domestic spending - not the pork barrel garbage that we've been saddled with under Bush. Bush's deficit was for a war and for pork; Reagan's was for armament, research, and ultimately, negotiated peace with our biggest threat. Reagan's moral push focused on "Say no to drugs," and actually triggered a drop in illicit drug use, whereas Bush is trying to pretty much stop everybody from doing everything. Reagan's patriotism focused on being proud of being an American, when we weren't the only superpower - that we would negotiate from strength, whereas Bush's was, "If they don't want to join us, screw them." Reagan's cowboy diplomacy actually employed DIPLOMACY, whereas Bush focuses on "cowboy" and leaves it at that. Over the years, people started to believe that we were living in Reagan's "shining city," and not realizing we had still more work to do.
Ronald Reagan was a great man, and quite simply, the greatest President in my lifetime. And he managed to do it with an opposition party holding the House of Representatives for all 8 of his years in power. And while the Democrats often disagreed with Reagan, in the end, the people were with Reagan, and Congress relented. Instead, these days, we've got a Congress that gets in line with an unpopular president on an idea that most people DON'T WANT on the bail-out bill. That kind of $#!+ didn't happen under Reagan.
In the Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton said, rightly, that the greatness of America was demonstrated by the strength of our example rather than the example of our strength. (That's paraphrased.) Trace that back, and you'll find it was Ronald Reagan that really put us back in that position, because until he came along, we were a beaten nation, and that's how the public felt.
Reagan's America was on the right track. I'd like to see someone get us back on the track to "the shining city." I'd like Reagan's optimism again. Obama might do that, because, in a serious way, I think he gets more of Reagan's message than anyone else in politics has in a LONG, LONG time.
-
Actually, I want to chime in on this.
Joe,
First off, I was of that same opinion regarding McCain but to think for one second that computers and the internet don't play a major role of every day American lives is not true. Back in 2000 I would completely agree, less than 30% of American households had a PC let alone the internet. In 2008 is has completely flipped, less than 30% of American households do NOT have a PC and the internet. It is very out of touch to not have some ability to get on a PC and the internet. Granted I don't want my commander and cheif wasting time on the net but he should now how to use it but if he doesn't I'm not going to hold it against him.
On your other "elitest" point. You are kidding yourself if you think that's what the problem with the Demo's and the "common man" American was in the last elections. 2000 the Republicans STOLD the election, Bush did not win the popular vote and his brother's state was the key to election and the MOST contraversial. In 2004 the Republicans became the RepuGlicans. Using red herring (gay marriage, terrorists win, Christian pandering) and swift boat tactics to win an elections has NOTHING to do with the Demo's being "snobby". Please don't try to sell that to anyone with a BRAIN Joe, it's insulting.
WOW,
Your last sentence states my whole case about intellectual snobbery more clearly than I could in my whole message.
The 2000 election was *NOT* stolen. It was lost by sheer stupidity on the part of Al Gore.
A group of third graders could tell you how a RECOUNT is supposed to work: you take *ALL* the ballots in question, and you count them ALL again. What's marked on the ballot is what counts. If you can't tell, the ballot is thrown out.
Yet the Democrats wanted only SOME of the counties in Florida recounted. They argued that some people "marked their ballots incorrectly." They argued about hanging chads.
And the final result? If the Democrats had done what I JUST SUGGESTED - the same thing ANY THIRD GRADE CLASS IN THE COUNTRY WOULD COME UP WITH - they'd have won the election, if we're to believe the recounts after the recount. But they fought over it, got their way once and didn't like the result, fought over it some more, didn't like the result, fought over it some more....
They tried less-than-ethical means, and got a less-than-correct result, thus proving the old adage once again, "Cheaters never prosper." Trying it their way, Bush won. Trying it the CORRECT way, Gore would've won.
And let me finish up this with my take on this garbage that is the electoral college.
Make no mistake - if you vote for McCain in California or Illinois, your vote doesn't count. Ditto if you vote for Obama in Arizona or Texas. And I think that is complete garbage.
But still, we see no need to eliminate it. The Democrats aren't willing to part with half of California; the Republicans want that half of California, but don't want to concede half of the South to get it.
As for the 2004 election, the Republicans cast the Democrats in the same kind of poor light that the Democrats are doing to the Republicans in this election. The fact was that back then, it was all anti-Iraq for the Democrats, and the Republicans made it about Gay Marriage and Terrorism. The fact that people apparently CARE about those issues should cause a few folks to take notice. But not OUR politicians. We just need the vote - we don't really care about the masses actually THINK. The very fact that many folks WILL vote when the topic is Gay Marriage should be an indicator of something. Instead, it's a "red herring."
I say it again - a lack of respect that ANYONE could POSSIBLY disagree with their policies and positions. That doesn't indicate "enlightenment" to me. It indicates one thing - which I can say about BOTH political parties - a genuine disconnect from WHO the American people are, what they believe and value, and an over-inflated sense of self pride.
Some of that air is going to get taken out of the Republican Party this election. But that same mandate that the Republicans had in 2000 is going to be handed to the Democrats. If they turn into the windbags that the Republicans turned out to be, their end will be similar.
-
Okay, WOW, that's the first time I've heard Mondale and Ferraro refered to as "Fritz and Tits."
The fact that this is literally the first time I've heard that is just plain sad, because that's freakin' hilarious!
Its not original, nor complete. The entire phrase should be "Fritz and Tits and Tyler too"
-
As I mentioned in earlier discussions I am most scared of Reid & Pelosi. My biggest wish for Obama is that he rises above petty partisanism and can lead the country. That he really stands up to the Dems in congress and works for a stronger America not Democratic revenge. That his Supreme Court picks are moderates and not flaming liberals. At this point I hope desparately that Republicans can hold onto 42-45 Senate seats.
I'm with you on Reid and Pelosi, and I think your wish for Obama is exactly right on the money.
As for the Supreme Court, I'm actually okay with a flaming liberal replacing John Paul Stevens - who is a flaming liberal - as long as the pick is a competent, Court-worthy candidate. In other words, the liberal version of John Roberts, not of Clarence Thomas. (Remind me sometime to detail just how bad of a choice I think Clarence Thomas has turned out to be. Has he actually written ANY opinion yet?)
As for a moderate on the Court - I don't know that that benefits anyone at this point. In fact, a moderate replacing Stevens could be very detrimental to the court. If we could replace TWO of the extremists - one from each end - with moderates at once, perhaps. But as it stands now, another liberal to replace Stevens is probably a better idea...although I'm still pretty peeved about that ridiculous Eminent Domain ruling. Then again, I'm not big on revisiting old cases.
-
What is most evident in the American psyche this past decade is how distrustful the majority has become of our politicians. This distrust has been exploited, mostly by the Republicans, but certainly by the Democrats as well, to a degree.
The 2000 election, which for some odd reason, Joe blames on the Democrats on losing, though the Republicans in Florida had more control over the results after the vote, was ripe for this distrust to fester. Clinton had been fighting for his political life for years prior to 2000, not so much for his dallyings with Monica as for lying about it to Congress. In the media age we now live in, and who should blame McCain if he choses not to participate, instant knowledge, whether accurate or not, can be had in the blink of a link.
And here is where I blame this instant gratification called the Information Highway - it makes people lazy. Who needs to think for themselves any longer, when they can Google someone elses thoughts, if not tainted research? Who needs to really understand the mechanism of politics if "REAL" issues, like gay marriage, abortion rights, and worshipping the wrong "Christian" religion can be used to attack an opponent? Let's call Obama a terrorist and a foreiger and see how many thousands of people in, let's say Missouri, believe it?
Reagan was not a great president, Joe, but he was a great communicator and looked very presidential and he would be appealing to a certain type of American who thought that was a good thing. Reagan made a deal with Iran prior to the 1980 election to free the hostages, but it meant the hostages had to stay prisoners for four more months, so Carter would not get the credit. Reagan had to win the election at all costs, you see. Reagan send the Marines to Lebanon as a show of force, saw 240 of them get blown up in a suicide attack, which should have been expected, and responded by doing nothing (THIS is my biggest complaint regarding his time as president - he talked like he was a cowboy, but ran away from a real fight).
But this is where history is repeating itself from his time. He got the USSR to overextend themselves militarily by essentially bankrupting that government in direct respond to the perceived "Star Wars" satellite network that Reagan supposedly was workiing on - and which never was implimented. They went belly-up and swimming in dept. THAT was how the Cold War was won.
But what no one thought to address at the time, but was the only thought to seriously cross my mind the day I heard the Berlin Wall was coming down, was that nature hates a vacuum, and the Soviet threat, while at times very confrontational, was necessary for BOTH countries. Having enemies to contend with is the one, essential foundation American Capitalism requires to be healthy. Without war, the threat of war, the image of foreign attacks on American soil, and how that might threaten this government, then the economy, has no viable outlet for massive manufacturing deals, international banking, an intelligence gathering - all of which drives the economy like no tree-hugging, peace-loving, environmentalist-based economy could EVER muster. Nor, apparently, a financial housing nightmare could ever accomplish.
We had removed the known Soviet enemy and nature was anxious to fill that void with another foe - it HAD to for the betterment of America's way of life. And the politicians all knew it. It did not take long, if you youngsters might recall, before we were at war again in Iraq. It was not long before we had "terrorists" around to be a constant threaten us once again. And we do NOT negotiate with terrorists, especially when a deal with them might lead to another Capitalist-threatening void.
It was not long before a highly convenient attack by them gave Bush the Carte Blanche any gung-ho American president needed to wield ultimate power like only a superpower could. And run us into dept to other countries, like Russia and China, that this country may never pay off, to pay for it. Paying companies like Halleburton with some of that money, who have stockholders like Cheny, Rumsfeld and Rice (what, didn't you know that?).
Which leads to the Reagan analogy of running your main enemy into bankrupcy. Since, thanks to Bush, everyone is now our enemy, we are the ones who are being run into bankrupcy. Thank God most of the rest of the world is going down with us, since they are so tied to the dollar. Which probably will leave a vacuum......which nature abhors......so will be filled........by..........
-
I believe Reagans demonization of the soviet empire and communism led to a feeling in our nation that it was ok to 'dislike' people just because again, and I think it's still something we see today.
It's my own personal held belief, I've had it for a while now, and very few people agree with me on it.
And that's one of the reasons I think he was horrible.
The fact that he's held as some 'beacon' as an example of 'strong republican leadership' is just something that baffles me...then again, the truth about history hardly ever comes out in the current or even the next generation...takes time for history to be written.
-
The very fact that many folks WILL vote when the topic is Gay Marriage should be an indicator of something. Instead, it's a "red herring."
That says everything right there. Today, with our 20/20 hindsight in full "economic panic" effect, doesn't the STUPIDITY of voting on that issue and ignoring the REAL issues at the time become even more evident? With our 20/20 hindsight on the Iraqi war in full effect doesn't it seem STUPID to vote on the issue of abortion?
Most people I know who vote based on their "moral" beliefs, don't even care to know what the other issue are that affect our country. That doesn't make THEM stupid, it just makes their method of voting stupid.
-
Here's my theory on Gay Marriage - eliminate all legal benefits of marriage since it's primarily a religious institution and then who the hell would want to get married.
The Anti Gay Marriage folks tend to be against it from a religious point of view - so make marriage purely religious with no legal benefits - then who would care?
-
The very fact that many folks WILL vote when the topic is Gay Marriage should be an indicator of something. Instead, it's a "red herring."
Probably, but I doubt it's an indicator of what you think it is.
Fear and hatred are good political motivators I've always found.
-
Proposition 8 here in California is to ban gay marriage and only recognize conventional marriages.
It might change the supporters' minds if they fully understood how taxable marriage can be - ANY type of marriage. And California could certainly use the addtional revenue.
-
The Prop 8 commercials have to be some of the most homophobic tripe i've seen perpetuated as 'politics' in a long while
It might change the supporters' minds if they fully understood how taxable marriage can be - ANY type of marriage. And California could certainly use the addtional revenue.
No, it wouldn't sadly.
-
Special forces hitting in Pakistan a few days ago and now Syria today.
Are the Repugs going to play the "ooooh you need us to battle weapons of mass terrorism card" one last time in attempts to get votes?
-
Have the republicans demonstrated in the past 7 years that they know how to 'battle terrorism'?
Seems to me they've demonstrated the ability to get young Americans killed in unnecessarily large amounts without accomplishing all that much.
-
^^^ He's a witch, he's a witch!
Have VP Palin come and exorcize him!
-
Proposition 8 here in California is to ban gay marriage and only recognize conventional marriages.
It might change the supporters' minds if they fully understood how taxable marriage can be - ANY type of marriage. And California could certainly use the addtional revenue.
Most of the people who are against it seem to be against it due to religious beliefs that will stomp out any logical reasoning.
This coming from the state that housed the people who thought up Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire, Bachelorette, Bachelor, Who Wants To Marry My Mom.....
-
I believe Reagans demonization of the soviet empire and communism led to a feeling in our nation that it was ok to 'dislike' people just because again, and I think it's still something we see today.
It's my own personal held belief, I've had it for a while now, and very few people agree with me on it.
And that's one of the reasons I think he was horrible.
The fact that he's held as some 'beacon' as an example of 'strong republican leadership' is just something that baffles me...then again, the truth about history hardly ever comes out in the current or even the next generation...takes time for history to be written.
jemagee,
Again, I disagree. Russia was seen as our enemy since long before the '80's, or have you forgotten Khruschev's shoe-banging incident in 1960, or even Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech from 1946, just down the road from us, in Fulton, MO? Let's face it - in the 1970's, America was truly AFRAID of the USSR. And let's not forget the McCarthy era. Let's not forget the Cuban Missile Crisis, handled by Kennedy. And REAGAN is the one to blame for our animosity toward Russia?
And for all of his "dislike" of Russia, the fact is that it was Reagan sat down with Gorbachev to build real understanding and respect between the nations. Reagan's sheer force of personality did more to disarm Russia that any treaty did prior to that point.
I agree - it takes some time for history to be written. I'd claim it's far too soon to write history's take on George W. Bush, but I can certainly tell you that he was awful. And it's tough to write all of Clinton's legacy, but it's not too soon to see that it was reasonbly good. Bush the First...it's getting easier to write his legacy; divided political climate.
Consider this: if it was possbile to write Kennedy's legacy in 1980 - and I believe it firmly was - then we're 3-to-8 years behind in writing Reagan's. Months shy of 20 years have passed since he left office - months shy of 28 since he took office.
Reagan's legacy is pretty simple: 1) He united the American people with a message of hope. 2) He got his policies through a House that was controlled by the opposite party. 3) The country was better off after his Presidency than before it.
I will be completely satisfied with a President that could just do numbers 1 and 3.
-
The very fact that many folks WILL vote when the topic is Gay Marriage should be an indicator of something. Instead, it's a "red herring."
That says everything right there. Today, with our 20/20 hindsight in full "economic panic" effect, doesn't the STUPIDITY of voting on that issue and ignoring the REAL issues at the time become even more evident? With our 20/20 hindsight on the Iraqi war in full effect doesn't it seem STUPID to vote on the issue of abortion?
Most people I know who vote based on their "moral" beliefs, don't even care to know what the other issue are that affect our country. That doesn't make THEM stupid, it just makes their method of voting stupid.
Actually, I don't think it invalidates it at all, unless you believe that the economic crisis was created by the fact that gays aren't allowed to marry.
Fact is that 4 years ago, the economy was good. We were all making more money than we were four years prior. Americans were generally in support of the war in Iraq. They voted on the hot issue OF THE DAY.
I submit to you that the major issue in this election will be THE ECONOMY. Nuclear proliferation might be a bigger long-term issue, but it's not today's hot button. Government health care might be a better topic. But the decision is going to come down to THE ECONOMY.
I'm not arguing that American's vote for the best long-term issue. I'm arguing that they vote for where they see the current fire. Always have. I think they always will. In 2004, that was gay marriage plus the Iraq war. In 2006, it was AGAINST the Iraq war. And this year, it'll be the economy.
-
Here's my theory on Gay Marriage - eliminate all legal benefits of marriage since it's primarily a religious institution and then who the hell would want to get married.
The Anti Gay Marriage folks tend to be against it from a religious point of view - so make marriage purely religious with no legal benefits - then who would care?
I think there's a lot of wisdom in this view.
Here's another one, that I think would solve the problem:
CIVIL UNIONS. It's not MARRIAGE. You're no longer associating what many religious would see as a sinful lifestyle with what they see as a holy institution, thus removing the religious objection. And make civil unions subject to their own insurance requirements, own financial risk/reward scenarios, and you remove the financial objection (and possibly, the financial incentive). Do that, and you've got a conservative Christian here who'd vote in favor of them.
I see the Gay Marriage thing itself as a red herring. Married drivers have lower insurance rates. They have lower health insurance rates. I think a signficiant portion of the motive is FINANCIAL. I say let the insurance companies do their bean-counter stuff and offer civilly united couples risk-based rates, and let's see how many folks still want to be civilly united.
-
Have the republicans demonstrated in the past 7 years that they know how to 'battle terrorism'?
Seems to me they've demonstrated the ability to get young Americans killed in unnecessarily large amounts without accomplishing all that much.
Jemagee,
I'd argue that POLITICIANS have no idea how to lead soldiers. (And in this usage, McCain is a poltician...not still a soldier.) Or much anything else, for that matter.
If the politicians decide the battle is worth fighting - which we did in 2003 - then they need to take their hands off and let the Generals do what they know how to do.
Things like the "troop surge" have no business being supported/argued before Congress. To me, that seems like an internal Armed Forces matter.
-
The very fact that many folks WILL vote when the topic is Gay Marriage should be an indicator of something. Instead, it's a "red herring."
Probably, but I doubt it's an indicator of what you think it is.
Fear and hatred are good political motivators I've always found.
Well, I think it's an indcator that a significant portion of people are against the idea. Some, so much that they'll go about things in the wrong way of dealing with it.
Which, of course, takes me off on the tangent of legislating through the judiciary, which is just as wrong.
The real problem is a simple one: this needs to be taken to the voters and the legislatures - NOT to the State Constitutions and NOT to the Judiciary.
-
I believe Reagans demonization of the soviet empire and communism led to a feeling in our nation that it was ok to 'dislike' people just because again, and I think it's still something we see today.
It's my own personal held belief, I've had it for a while now, and very few people agree with me on it.
And that's one of the reasons I think he was horrible.
The fact that he's held as some 'beacon' as an example of 'strong republican leadership' is just something that baffles me...then again, the truth about history hardly ever comes out in the current or even the next generation...takes time for history to be written.
jemagee,
Again, I disagree. Russia was seen as our enemy since long before the '80's, or have you forgotten Khruschev's shoe-banging incident in 1960, or even Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech from 1946, just down the road from us, in Fulton, MO? Let's face it - in the 1970's, America was truly AFRAID of the USSR. And let's not forget the McCarthy era. Let's not forget the Cuban Missile Crisis, handled by Kennedy. And REAGAN is the one to blame for our animosity toward Russia?
And for all of his "dislike" of Russia, the fact is that it was Reagan sat down with Gorbachev to build real understanding and respect between the nations. Reagan's sheer force of personality did more to disarm Russia that any treaty did prior to that point.
Joe -
It had much more to do with the Soviet Union having a negotiator like Gorbachev then anything Reagan did. Gorbachev was the first Soviet leader to see the direction his country was going and tried to ameliorate the future before disaster hit. Reagan's biggest contribution by far was being in the right place at the right time to take credit for over forty years of Cold War conflict finally coming to an end.
-
The very fact that many folks WILL vote when the topic is Gay Marriage should be an indicator of something. Instead, it's a "red herring."
Probably, but I doubt it's an indicator of what you think it is.
Fear and hatred are good political motivators I've always found.
Well, I think it's an indcator that a significant portion of people are against the idea. Some, so much that they'll go about things in the wrong way of dealing with it.
Which, of course, takes me off on the tangent of legislating through the judiciary, which is just as wrong.
The real problem is a simple one: this needs to be taken to the voters and the legislatures - NOT to the State Constitutions and NOT to the Judiciary.
No Joe, the REAL problem is that this type of legislation is trying to legislate sexual preference, which is like trying to legislate against having too many bowel movements.
-
The very fact that many folks WILL vote when the topic is Gay Marriage should be an indicator of something. Instead, it's a "red herring."
Probably, but I doubt it's an indicator of what you think it is.
Fear and hatred are good political motivators I've always found.
Well, I think it's an indcator that a significant portion of people are against the idea. Some, so much that they'll go about things in the wrong way of dealing with it.
Which, of course, takes me off on the tangent of legislating through the judiciary, which is just as wrong.
The real problem is a simple one: this needs to be taken to the voters and the legislatures - NOT to the State Constitutions and NOT to the Judiciary.
No Joe, the REAL problem is that this type of legislation is trying to legislate sexual preference, which is like trying to legislate against having too many bowel movements.
I disagree completely that it's legislating sexual preference. It is opening the door to an alternative lifestyle by creating an acknowledgement of it legislatively - just as marriage is recognized legislatively.
You see, I think the gay rights movement should have used the LEGISLATURES to gain acknowledgement - which is the proper method - rather than the COURTS.
-
The very fact that many folks WILL vote when the topic is Gay Marriage should be an indicator of something. Instead, it's a "red herring."
Probably, but I doubt it's an indicator of what you think it is.
Fear and hatred are good political motivators I've always found.
Well, I think it's an indcator that a significant portion of people are against the idea. Some, so much that they'll go about things in the wrong way of dealing with it.
Which, of course, takes me off on the tangent of legislating through the judiciary, which is just as wrong.
The real problem is a simple one: this needs to be taken to the voters and the legislatures - NOT to the State Constitutions and NOT to the Judiciary.
No Joe, the REAL problem is that this type of legislation is trying to legislate sexual preference, which is like trying to legislate against having too many bowel movements.
I disagree completely that it's legislating sexual preference. It is opening the door to an alternative lifestyle by creating an acknowledgement of it legislatively - just as marriage is recognized legislatively.
You see, I think the gay rights movement should have used the LEGISLATURES to gain acknowledgement - which is the proper method - rather than the COURTS.
And I am saying neither legislation NOR the courts can rule on sexual preference, which is REALLY what is being asked. Providing rights to gay couples should not require an amendment to the constitution. Opponents are trying to deny access to benefits they would qualify for through recognition of marriage between gays, but what they are really doing is trying to legislate homosexuality out of America and forcing them to comply.
-
Well, I think it's an indcator that a significant portion of people are against the idea. Some, so much that they'll go about things in the wrong way of dealing with it.
Depends on the people you know and choose to hang out with, most of the people I know or hang out with couldn't give a crap who gets married, but i don't tend to hang out with homophobic bigots.
-
JoMal is so much smarter and eloquent than me from now on i'm just going to agree with what he writes
-
Just want to gauge the tenor of the board on this one:
Would it be fair to conclude that if you support Proposition 8 for any reason, you are a homophobic bigot?
-
Just want to gauge the tenor of the board on this one:
Would it be fair to conclude that if you support Proposition 8 for any reason, you are a homophobic bigot?
No. You have every right to not agree with homosexuality as someone has the right to agree with it or take part in it. You could also be against Prop 8 but still not agree with homosexuality being morally okay. If you vote NO on 8 that doesn't automatically say you condone homosexuality.
Honestly to me...the issue is more about the government telling PEOPLE what they can or cannot do moreso then it is a moral issue. If the government can essentially tell PEOPLE they cannot be married what else are they going to say we cannot do? I don't care what PEOPLE do behind closed doors. I also don't care to tell PEOPLE what they can do behind closed doors. If gay people want to marry and be partners in the home, I say let them. I also don't think it should be up to the government to make a distinction between gay PEOPLE and regular PEOPLE.
-
Just want to gauge the tenor of the board on this one:
Would it be fair to conclude that if you support Proposition 8 for any reason, you are a homophobic bigot?
No. You have every right to not agree with homosexuality as someone has the right to agree with it or take part in it. You could also be against Prop 8 but still not agree with homosexuality being morally okay. If you vote NO on 8 that doesn't automatically say you condone homosexuality.
Honestly to me...the issue is more about the government telling PEOPLE what they can or cannot do moreso then it is a moral issue. If the government can essentially tell PEOPLE they cannot be married what else are they going to say we cannot do? I don't care what PEOPLE do behind closed doors. I also don't care to tell PEOPLE what they can do behind closed doors. If gay people want to marry and be partners in the home, I say let them. I also don't think it should be up to the government to make a distinction between gay PEOPLE and regular PEOPLE.
wk -
I rarely do this, but I am in complete compliance with this take and especially the eloquence in which you stated it.
-
No. You have every right to not agree with homosexuality as someone has the right to agree with it or take part in it. You could also be against Prop 8 but still not agree with homosexuality being morally okay. If you vote NO on 8 that doesn't automatically say you condone homosexuality.
Honestly to me...the issue is more about the government telling PEOPLE what they can or cannot do moreso then it is a moral issue. If the government can essentially tell PEOPLE they cannot be married what else are they going to say we cannot do? I don't care what PEOPLE do behind closed doors. I also don't care to tell PEOPLE what they can do behind closed doors. If gay people want to marry and be partners in the home, I say let them. I also don't think it should be up to the government to make a distinction between gay PEOPLE and regular PEOPLE.
Just to be open, I have no position on Proposition 8, and I agree with pretty much everything you say. Whether it's a choice or it's natural, I don't care what other people do behind closed doors. And I do think they should have legal rights. I think this is much more complex issue than the homos vs. bigots crowd want us to realize.
The government did not invent marriage; it adopted it. Making it a legal, civil right for anyone will have ramifications . . .
Will private, religious adoption agencies (which do A LOT of good) stay in California when state law tells them they MUST place children with same-sex couples?
How will parents, who have the ultimate right and responsibility to teach their children, feel when government-mandated sex education sessions include lessons on same-sex relations?
What will happen to a parent who demands to know which day his or her child will be taught government-mandates sex education so he can prepare the child for he or she will see? When a principal with an agenda refuses to tell him which day it will happen, and the parent refuses to leave until the principal tells does, will the parent be arrested and taken to jail?
Will private religious universities be forced to provide housing for same-sex couples?
If doctors try to transfer patients to another colleague because he or she does not feel comfortable with the morality of the procedure, can they be sued for expressing their beliefs?
Can a company fire an employee if the employee refuses to do something against his or her religious beliefs?
Can a photographer be sued for declining to photograph a same-sex couple's wedding ceremony because it went against his or her religious beliefs? Yes, she can, and she can be forced to pay the plaintiff's legal fees of almost $7,000.
Will the Boy Scouts of America lose access to government land?
NOTE: I'm not making these up. Each of these examples HAS ALREADY HAPPENED in various places; and, incidentally, none of the referenced religions is my own.
This is getting out of hand. We should be able to find a happy medium. The problem is we have extremists on each side making all of the noise, while reasonable, compassionate (and maybe even religious) people want to find a way to meet in the middle.
-
You have every right to not agree with homosexuality as someone has the right to agree with it or take part in it.
Are you sure?
-
From the commercials I've been seeing, the major proponents of prop 8 are homophobes and i feel they are targeting 'homophobic fears' by bringing up teaching in schools and such.
I personally see no rationale reason to be against gay marriage - i see religious reasons and reasons of intolerance - neither of which should be involved in making LEGAL decisions - like i said - if marriage is a religious institution - keep it there and give it NO legal bearing or benefit.
-
If marriage is a religious institution - keep it there and give it NO legal bearing or benefit.
Maybe that's the answer. It is hard for me to defend the fact that I receive benefits another cannot receive because I've been through a religious ceremony and they haven't.
-
If marriage is a religious institution - keep it there and give it NO legal bearing or benefit.
Maybe that's the answer. It is hard for me to defend the fact that I receive benefits another cannot receive because I've been through a religious ceremony and they haven't.
It strikes me as inherently 'unconstitutional' that a religious ceremony bestows legal benefits - i mean isn't that what the whole separation of church and state is - or you have to come up with two 'marriages' - there's religious marriage and state marriage - and religion can have its own marriage back and refuse to accept others for whatever reasons they come up with
-
You have every right to not agree with homosexuality as someone has the right to agree with it or take part in it.
Are you sure?
In my eyes, yes. I think that a person has a right to not support homosexuality just as much as someone has the right to support it. No one should be allowed to FORCE someone to think a certain way. You can comment on a mentality and express your opinion that it is wrong. Or you can comment on a mentality and agree. You can voice your opinion all you want. It is a right of this country. Something I don't think should ever be taken away.
And Ted where do colleges provide housing for couples at all? I didn't know they secured places for married people to stay. Thought that was up to the person attending. If it is on the campus I don't think they provide rooms for married people. At least not the colleges I've been in/around.
-
And Ted where do colleges provide housing for couples at all? I didn't know they secured places for married people to stay. Thought that was up to the person attending. If it is on the campus I don't think they provide rooms for married people. At least not the colleges I've been in/around.
UCSB has married student housing...if that's what you are asking...it's not really housing on the main campus but it's housing provided by the university for married students.
I don't know if they provide it to life partners or if it's ever come up.
-
From the commercials I've been seeing, the major proponents of prop 8 are homophobes and i feel they are targeting 'homophobic fears' by bringing up teaching in schools and such.
I agree. The commercials have been dirty and cheap. Could they teach about gay marriage in school? Sure. They could teach about of a lot of things if the teacher decided to go that path at that moment. A teacher could get a wild hair up their rear end and teach about Scientology and Xenu if they felt like it. I went to California public schools my entire life and never were we taught about marriage. Not once.
Plus I just can't help but laugh when you hear who sponsors it "The Knights of Columbus" sounds like a flippin KKK chapter.
-
Plus I just can't help but laugh when you hear who sponsors it "The Knights of Columbus" sounds like a flippin KKK chapter.
They aren't?
Seriously, when I was in High School (on the east coast, lower merion high school, late 80s) our 'health' teacher had some anti choice looney come in with aborted fetuses and try to scare us pretty harshly.
They neglected to realize that they had the pretty well informed son of an OB/GYN there to dispute the anti choice rhetoric...i don't think anyone had ever talked back to the person before...didn't endear me to the teacher (but that was part for the course) but i was super angry about it at the time, didn't realize then what i know now or i would have made a bigger deal about it - aborted fetuses do not belong in public schools
-
And Ted where do colleges provide housing for couples at all? I didn't know they secured places for married people to stay. Thought that was up to the person attending. If it is on the campus I don't think they provide rooms for married people. At least not the colleges I've been in/around.
UCSB has married student housing...if that's what you are asking...it's not really housing on the main campus but it's housing provided by the university for married students.
I don't know if they provide it to life partners or if it's ever come up.
Maybe the only answer is to do what I was trying to point out earlier. Drop the word in front of PEOPLE. See when you say that UCSB provides housing for married couples, no big deal. As soon as throw gay in front of 'married people' that is when people get upset and fail to realize it's still two people. Correct me if I am wrong but the #1 requirement for marriage is that the two people are in love right? That comes first before people jumping in and saying if the marriage is right or okay or going to work etc. Pretty sure whether you think homosexuality is wrong or not you could admit that two gay people can love one another just the same as two straight people.
-
e #1 requirement for marriage is that the two people are in love right
Well see, that's where religion and cultures get involved and it all becomes very tricky...
Pretty sure whether you think homosexuality is wrong or not you could admit that two gay people can love one another just the same as two straight people.
You haven't made many homophobes in your life have you? Trust me, homophobes don't admit that they are in love, they think it's perverted, wrong, gross, against god, whatever, but they have absolutely no respect for any aspect of a homosexual relationship, they think it's a disease.
Hell, certain religions have 'camps' where you can go and they can cure you of being gay....
-
e #1 requirement for marriage is that the two people are in love right
Well see, that's where religion and cultures get involved and it all becomes very tricky...
Pretty sure whether you think homosexuality is wrong or not you could admit that two gay people can love one another just the same as two straight people.
You haven't made many homophobes in your life have you? Trust me, homophobes don't admit that they are in love, they think it's perverted, wrong, gross, against god, whatever, but they have absolutely no respect for any aspect of a homosexual relationship, they think it's a disease.
Hell, certain religions have 'camps' where you can go and they can cure you of being gay....
I meant marriage in this country, you are right and I should have been more specific.
Even arranged marriages in Indian culture nowadays still fall back on if the two people like each other.
-
I meant marriage in this country, you are right and I should have been more specific.
Still, there are arranged marriages in the US, people 'rush' into marriage not out of love but responsibility (usually due to a pregnancy)...the assumption that all marriages in the US is based on love is kind of flawed, and based on the divorce rate I gotta think most people who htink they are in love don't really know what love actually is
-
And BTW - the bigger point is that people who are anti homosexuality don't feel you can be in love with someone of the same sex - not in that way - they think it's wrong and evil and disgusting.
And let me not forget my mothers idea - she married my stepfather not out of love but because she thought he'd make a good father (he wasn't)....people get married for a variety of reasons, some having to do with love, some not
-
And not that I didn't see this coming
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot
-
This is getting out of hand. We should be able to find a happy medium. The problem is we have extremists on each side making all of the noise, while reasonable, compassionate (and maybe even religious) people want to find a way to meet in the middle.
I haven't read all the responses yet...but this IMHO hits the entire political scene dead on. And to put it in terms of the presidential race: McCain lost the middle (actually drove it away), Obama did not win it. Hopefully Obama can govern from it.
-
I meant marriage in this country, you are right and I should have been more specific.
Still, there are arranged marriages in the US, people 'rush' into marriage not out of love but responsibility (usually due to a pregnancy)...the assumption that all marriages in the US is based on love is kind of flawed, and based on the divorce rate I gotta think most people who htink they are in love don't really know what love actually is
Generally speaking, in America, people care about one another when they decide to get married. I would say the amount of people who get married vs the people who are somewhat forced into marriage does not favor the later.
You and I are on the same page here though. Let's not get away from that. That is of course the point that marriage is still between two PEOPLE with out getting much farther then that.
-
The extremists in 'both' parties have too much voice - and too much influence - but as i understand it, a republican can't win without the extremist support - i don't know how it works with democrats
-
The extremists in 'both' parties have too much voice - and too much influence - but as i understand it, a republican can't win without the extremist support - i don't know how it works with democrats
Probably with winning the minority vote.
Here is a random and interesting fact....no Democratic canidate has won the majority of the white vote in the past 20 years.
-
The extremists in 'both' parties have too much voice - and too much influence - but as i understand it, a republican can't win without the extremist support - i don't know how it works with democrats
Huh?
If you told people in Europe what we consider a "liberal", they'd laugh in your face. There is no extremist in American politics. Everyone's in the center. Sometimes you get VP's that are more extreme (not extreme, mind you, but moreso than the presidential candidates), but we haven't had an "extremist" candidate on either side in quite some time.
-
No extremists huh?
Environmentalists who spike trees - not extremists?
ANti Choice people who put death lists of doctors who perform abortions up on the web? Not extremist
Really don't give a flying frack what europe feels is extremists, don't live there.
-
No extremists huh?
Environmentalists who spike trees - not extremists?
ANti Choice people who put death lists of doctors who perform abortions up on the web? Not extremist
Really don't give a flying frack what europe feels is extremists, don't live there.
Well....while you think those people are extreme I think seeing TRUE communists having a shot at winning an election in other countries is more a long the lines of what DB is saying.
-
just because there are people who put up death lists of doctors who perform abortions doesn't mean those are the people who have the influence. Not only are our politicians running for office towards the center on both parties, but the party bases (contrary to what you hear from the media at times) is near middle as well.
If you notice what I said is "there's no extremists in American politics", which was in response to your statement "the extremists in 'both' parties have too much voice". If you can get where I was making the argument that there are no extremists, I'd like to hear it.
-
I had the prop 8 discussion with a couple of people and at work and one thing I brought up was something mentioned in the thread. Replace the term "marriage" in all "legal" verbage with something else. Make "marriage" a religious term exclusively that way each church/org can decide who they will or will not marry and that in no way shape or form will affect the benefits of "unions". I know plenty of people who are married but did not do so in a church.
There are enough people who get married for reasons other than "love", so why not let gays jump on the bandwagon regardless of who is or is not in "love". I find it silly that people think the fact that gays, or whoever, having the ability to "marry" makes other peoples "marriages" tainted or invalide. That's like saying just cause a KKK member can call him/herself and American it somehow impacts me calling myself an "American". It's silly.
-
Ah forget it
-
You have every right to not agree with homosexuality as someone has the right to agree with it or take part in it.
Are you sure?
In my eyes, yes. I think that a person has a right to not support homosexuality just as much as someone has the right to support it. No one should be allowed to FORCE someone to think a certain way. You can comment on a mentality and express your opinion that it is wrong. Or you can comment on a mentality and agree. You can voice your opinion all you want. It is a right of this country. Something I don't think should ever be taken away.
And Ted where do colleges provide housing for couples at all? I didn't know they secured places for married people to stay. Thought that was up to the person attending. If it is on the campus I don't think they provide rooms for married people. At least not the colleges I've been in/around.
University of Missouri has family housing - or at least, did, when I came to college there in 1984.
-
The extremists in 'both' parties have too much voice - and too much influence - but as i understand it, a republican can't win without the extremist support - i don't know how it works with democrats
Probably with winning the minority vote.
Here is a random and interesting fact....no Democratic canidate has won the majority of the white vote in the past 20 years.
That is interesting.
Has anything other then Diebold counting machines been used in the last 20?