Right. Because we are the only country that outlaws drugs. If you want to talk about the Netherlands, they allow small amounts of bud and mushrooms to be sold in designated coffee shops. All other "hard" drugs are just as illegal as they are here.
Yes. Do you see that you are as full of yourself as the people you ridicule? You want religion removed, they want to force it down your throat. Opposite sides of the same coin.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Not that easy.... The challenge comes in the SCOTUS when a married Gay couple seeking to have their state recognize the marriage are turned down consistent with the Federal Law which allows States to NOT recognize another States marriage contract which under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause was the case.
States have the right to legislate in their own State consistent with the US Constitution, as you know... The 14th Amendment will be the issue regarding this. The Equal Protection Clause can be used to force recognition or if a 5/4 against, as I suspect might occur, we'll be left with folks moving to 'friendly' states... Insane but most likely...
dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,068
- 2,534
- 126
This is exactly how I see his position. If he explicitly said he was for it then his lead would disappear. Since support for it decreases with age, it makes much more sense to wait 20 years for all the old fogies to croak. Then we can repeal all the retarded "defense of marriage" laws/amendments.
So his FISA vote was just pandering? His stance on Islamic fundamentalists is pandering? What about Georgia?
I think some of you are voting for the Obama you are wishing for, not the one that is running.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 18
- 81
So you are saying the things I listed really are just pandering? They really aren't Obama's real stances?
Please, enlighten this confused little man as to Obama's real stance on the mentioned issues. Work sucks today, I need a laugh.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 18
- 81
I don't think you understand what the word pandering means since his votes on the issues you listed were in opposition to the majority of his supporters. FISA? You'll find few dems who wanted that passed with the telco immunity.
Obama said he would also renegotiate NAFTA but no one believes that either. You reallly need to be able to pick up on when a politician is talking shit or not, but it's not that hard.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 18
- 81
You keep using the confused icon and I'm starting to believe you are really very confused. Obama's stance on gay marriage is designed to appeal to about half of the electorate who support him, and endorsing gay marriage would probably drive away about 25% of his votes, so he panders. The rest of his supporters aren't going to jump ship because of his position because they have no candidate more left than him to go to.Originally posted by: Ocguy31
We are talking about pandering to the center/right. Who is the confused one here?
His position on FISA for example was a compromise vote he made which pissed off about 80% of his base, so who exactly was he pandering to?
Originally posted by: jonks
You keep using the confused icon and I'm starting to believe you are really very confused. Obama's stance on gay marriage is designed to appeal to about half of the electorate who support him, and endorsing gay marriage would probably drive away about 25% of his votes, so he panders. The rest of his supporters aren't going to jump ship because of his position because they have no candidate more left than him to go.Originally posted by: Ocguy31
His position on FISA for example was a compromise vote he made which pissed off about 80% of his base, so who exactly was he pandering to?
Now I'm sure you dont know what pandering means. His core liberal base is already going to vote for him anyway. He needs to pander to the center/right in order to get those votes as well.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 18
- 81
Hence his position on gay marriage.Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: jonks
You keep using the confused icon and I'm starting to believe you are really very confused. Obama's stance on gay marriage is designed to appeal to about half of the electorate who support him, and endorsing gay marriage would probably drive away about 25% of his votes, so he panders. The rest of his supporters aren't going to jump ship because of his position because they have no candidate more left than him to go.Originally posted by: Ocguy31
His position on FISA for example was a compromise vote he made which pissed off about 80% of his base, so who exactly was he pandering to?
Now I'm sure you dont know what pandering means. His core liberal base is already going to vote for him anyway. He needs to pander to the center/right in order to get those votes as well.
Prop 8 (more importantly the sentiment behind Prop 8) would have fit in nicely 40-50 years ago when women and blacks were struggling for their rights.
Now it seems like a desperate attempt to fall back to those days when bigotry roamed free.
Like every other minority group, the homosexual community will face its detractors. There will be hills and valleys. Ultimately though the barriers to equality will fall for them much like it has fallen for people of color, race, creed, sex, age, disability..etc etc etc
Now it seems like a desperate attempt to fall back to those days when bigotry roamed free.
Like every other minority group, the homosexual community will face its detractors. There will be hills and valleys. Ultimately though the barriers to equality will fall for them much like it has fallen for people of color, race, creed, sex, age, disability..etc etc etc
You do understand that California already passed a similar measure a couple years back? And that several states have something on the books already that limit marriage to "One man and one woman"?
Part of the RNC strategy in '04 was to put these measures on the ballot in order to drive the religious base to the polls. I am 100% certain that these measures are the reason that Kerry did not win.
On a side note, my SO still isnt talking to me today after our fight over this last night. We drank a few beers and I asked her how two guys screwing affects her life in any way. She was brought up in a religious family, so that didnt go over well.
HAHA sorry to hear about your SO troubles. Yes Cali passed similar legislation. The Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I think it was the right choice made by the court.
Like I said before, hills and valleys. Most of these struggles turn out as such. There is no clear cut sentiment amongst voters or our citizenry for that matter. But when you get down to the heart of the matter, what people are attempting to do (build discrimination in our state constitutions) is wrong. I think that good will prevail, and we will learn the error of our ways...its happened before.
With that said, the bias and the bigotry belongs in the churches, not in the constitutions. If you don't want gays to marry then don't marry them in your church. Isn't that what this is really all about?
The Presidential candidates for November's General Election have announced their positions on dozens of diverse issues ranging from soaring energy costs to global warming, from terrorism to education, and from health care to government spending. Each candidate is appealing to voters of faith, claiming that his particular agenda will benefit the religious community.
How does a Biblical voter cut through the flowery promises and create a framework by which to evaluate the opposing claims? What is the Biblical basis for evaluating a presidential candidate's agenda?
The Bible, Voters & the 2008 Election provides a simple and clear Scriptural answers to these questions - answers further illustrated by historical examples and elucidated with current statistics. Biblical voters can now know with assurance how to make informed Biblical evaluations of the candidates in this election.
---
From: http://www.wallbuilders.com/store/product212.html
Of course, this is from the religious extreme. Hopefully, it's not prevalent among the religious.
And, no, I'm not for the banishment of religion. That would be as outrageous as restricting gun ownership. Religion provides the much needed basis for humans to go to war with each other and the increased production of goods. It's good for the economy, stupid.
I just voted against prop 8 (mail-in ballot) because I don't like bigots and so I always vote against them. Case closed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 16K
-
-
Info 64MB V-Cache on 5XXX Zen3 Average +15% in Games
- Started by Kedas
- Replies: 3K
-
Question AMD Phoenix/Zen 4 APU Speculation and Discussion- Started by uzzi38
- Replies: 183
Facebook
Twitter