GOP unveils ad suggesting Obama has basically won presidential race

[jemagee]

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.

[JoMal]

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.

[jemagee]

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.

[Reality]

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?

[jemagee]

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.
 

[Reality]

^^^ He's a witch, he's a witch!

Have VP Palin come and exorcize him!

[westkoast]

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.....

[Joe Vancil]

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.

[Joe Vancil]

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.

[Joe Vancil]

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.

[Joe Vancil]

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.

[Joe Vancil]

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.

[JoMal]

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.

[JoMal]

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.

[Joe Vancil]

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.