I wonder what republican would say if they seethis.
Can you provide the data for how much these states have given/received every year of their statehood? It's not exactly fair to just look at one year of data.
It is likely an issue of "economy of scale" issue. Covering Rhode Island in highways is a lot cheaper than covering Texas or Alaska in highways.
@gedavids: I really can't stress enough just how much I disagree with you on all of those points.
That's really ok, I don't mind. On the gay and reproductive rights, I really don't care that much either way. If they banned or completely legalized them Tues I wouldn't lose any sleep. My key issues are taxes, the mounting debt, and healthcare.
I want to stress again, I only prefer McCain. I think Obama is a good, smart individual and if he gets elected Tuesday we'll do alright. I really like his plans for health care.
Hitler said the same about himself. He got emotional, in his pants. I was really disturbed when I saw that documentary where, I think it was his psychologist, told the story that Hitler got aroused by his own speeches.
I have issues with Obama's stance on U.S. military incursions into sovereign nations we are not a war at, such as actions last week in Syria and possible actions into Pakistan.
As a man I don't feel I'm qualified to even have an opinion here.
On the gay and reproductive rights, I really don't care that much either way. If they banned or completely legalized them Tues I wouldn't lose any sleep.
That's true, you probably don't care anymore, but god help you should you ever have children who need to learn how human beings ACTUALLY reproduce and stay healthy. And god help those children should they need open access to contraception. Or god forbid they ever end up with an unwanted pregnancy. Reproductive rights is one of those issues where you absolutely need to think about the big picture, not just throw your hands up and say: "none of my business!"
Marraige is between a Man and Woman, this has been the fabric of society even back in ancient Greece when homosexuality was considered more pure than heterosexuality. I don't hate gays, I have gay friends.
Followup time: is homosexuality inborn? Or is it an individual choice?
I wonder what republican would say if they seethis.
Can you provide the data for how much these states have given/received every year of their statehood? It's not exactly fair to just look at one year of data.
It is likely an issue of "economy of scale" issue. Covering Rhode Island in highways is a lot cheaper than covering Texas or Alaska in highways.
Here is the source I am looking to something that is more up to date but 2005 is the closest they have.
That's true, you probably don't care anymore, but god help you should you ever have children who need to learn how human beings ACTUALLY reproduce and stay healthy. And god help those children should they need open access to contraception. Or god forbid they ever end up with an unwanted pregnancy. Reproductive rights is one of those issues where you absolutely need to think about the big picture, not just throw your hands up and say: "none of my business!"
Fair point, well made. I will consider these issues in the future (ie Tuesday). Don't they teach sexuality in schools anymore? That's where I learned how stuff worked.
Followup time: is homosexuality inborn? Or is it an individual choice?
Neither, I think it's a result of the development of a person. I don't think there's a gay gene, but I also find the idea that someone chooses to be gay rather laughable. This topic is entirely too complex to point to one cause, it's a culmination of many things.
But the issue is gay marriage, not what causes the gay. And I think Barack agrees with me that marriage is between a man and a woman.
So then, should gay people be allowed to enter into a union that is legally identical to a "marriage" without actually calling it a "marriage?" Or are you saying that we should deny certain legal benefits to people on the basis of their sexual orientation?
As for the degree to which sexual orientation is inborn, let me ask you this: did you ever consciously pick your sexual orientation? Did there come a point in your life where you said "I like boobs?" or "I like penis?" Ever?
@gedavids: I've had 7 tours in 3 of the 4 theatres of this war. Having experienced Iraq firsthand on 3 seperate occasions - twice as an enlistedman, once as an officer - I can tell you, we've done what we went there to do and a withdrawal is long overdue as our hands are pretty much tied in the current climate there. That's all I'm gonna say about that.
But the issue is gay marriage, not what causes the gay.
Actually, it's a huge component. A man and a woman can marry because it is a "natural" coupling. However, if homosexuality is inborn, is it not just as natural? If so, who are we to abridge someone's right to marry a person of their choosing? You make a good case about someone choosing homosexuality being laughable. Then I say it is also laughable that we should deny them the right to marry.
So then, should gay people be allowed to enter into a union that is legally identical to a "marriage" without actually calling it a "marriage?" Or are you saying that we should deny certain legal benefits to people on the basis of their sexual orientation?
If such a thing existed, I would be in favor of it. The fact of the matter is: civil unions are a joke. In 2006 they were recognized only in Vermont and Connecticut, to say nothing of a federal level (homosexual couples in a civil union cannot jointly file taxes, for example). The religious and social definitions of the word "marriage" have become too tightly coupled with the legal definition, and changing one will inevitably change the other.
If homosexuality truly is an inborn trait, denying homosexuals the right to marry strips them of "the basic civil rights of man", as stated by the US Supreme Court (in Loving v. Virginia, the court case that found miscegenation laws to be illegal nationwide). I think Barack Obama is completely wrong on this issue, but I sure as hell won't let Sarah "God-Made-Me-Governer" Palin get anywhere closer to it than she already is.
Edit to provide reference to miscegenation laws. I don't like citing Wikipedia, but for a definition I'll do it.
I like Obama, he's a smart dude, but I disagree with his ideas on a fundamental level.
Which ideas?
The way taxes should be structured. I don't believe in the "spread the wealth" idea. Anyway, we're spreading the wealth pretty well right now, why does it have to be even more lopsided.
[...]
If we're going cut taxes, I favor McCain's plan of cutting corporate income tax to help create jobs.
You know, Teddy Roosevelt was a huge fan of the progressive taxation system and McCain himself very heavily himself opposed the Bush Tax system in 2001. His tax plan right now is a rather recent and heavy change in minds.
I like Obama, he's a smart dude, but I disagree with his ideas on a fundamental level.
Which ideas?
The way taxes should be structured. I don't believe in the "spread the wealth" idea. Anyway, we're spreading the wealth pretty well right now, why does it have to be even more lopsided.
[...]
If we're going cut taxes, I favor McCain's plan of cutting corporate income tax to help create jobs.
You know, Teddy Roosevelt was a huge fan of the progressive taxation system and McCain himself very heavily himself opposed the Bush Tax system in 2001. His tax plan right now is a rather recent and heavy change in minds.
Teddy Roosevelt was also a Progressive. And income tax wasn't ratified until 1913 (when the democrats took over) and the highest tax bracket only saw 6%.
Thanks primarily to the Bush administration and a Republican Congressthat's no longer the case. George Bush ran on a hugeabstinence only platformand stuck to it.McCain seems to agree. This is why you need to pay attention to the issue.
Again, noted, but it's not high on my priorities. If they've decided not to teach it in school then you have to pick it up as a parent.
Actually, it's a huge component. A man and a woman can marry because it is a "natural" coupling. However, if homosexuality is inborn, is it not just as natural? If so, who are we to abridge someone's right to marry a person of their choosing? You make a good case about someone choosing homosexuality being laughable. Then I say it is also laughable that we should deny them the right to marry.
Find me a scientific study that proves there is a "the gay" gene. Until such time that this is proven or unproven, this is largely speculation.
So then, should gay people be allowed to enter into a union that is legally identical to a "marriage" without actually calling it a "marriage?" Or are you saying that we should deny certain legal benefits to people on the basis of their sexual orientation?
As for the degree to which sexual orientation is inborn, let me ask you this: did you ever consciously pick your sexual orientation? Did there come a point in your life where you said "I like boobs?" or "I like penis?" Ever?
I really don't ever remember wondering to like boobs or penis. I remember liking boobs and not really understanding why. If they want civil unions that are actually the same as marriage, I don't mind that.
If they've decided not to teach it in school then you have to pick it up as a parent.
You bastard, I note your use of the word "parent". So you're fine with teenagers ending up with children they didn't want because they haven't been taught properly?
gedavids, other than your gay marriage stance, you sound to me like a real Republican. You know, someone who would have voted for Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, or Lincoln. It's sad, but your people have all been disenfranchised. There simply are no candidates that even remotely match your viewpoints. You can vote for Democrats, the exact opposite of what you want. You can vote for a crazy third party, and even the libertarians are more insane this year than ever. Lastly, you can vote for the Republicans, which have almost nothing in common with the Republicans of the past. Even Ron Paul is too crazy with his stupid ideas about returning to the gold standard.
There are many people out there like yourself, and it seems you are voting for McCain simply because he's in the same party that used to stand for your ideology. However, that party's ideology is as different now from what you want as is the Democrats. Read this to see what I'm talking about. Here's a quote from that article to give you an idea of what it's about.
...Many moderate Republicans still do not realize what has happened. They believe the Republican Party is still the same. They follow the Republican rhetoric of today because they haven't stopped to see the hypocrisy, the contradictions, and the slowly-changed priorities. Those moderate Republicans still supporting McCain are unwitting participants in an entirely new agenda...
As distasteful as it may be, I think the best strategy for real Republicans is to vote Democratic. It will force the new shitty Republican Party down further and further until it is on the same level as other crazy religious parties like the deceptively named Constitution Party. This will give a new Republican party, like the Republican party of old, a chance to emerge. It will take years, but it could definitely happen in our lifetimes.
I really don't ever remember wondering to like boobs or penis. I remember liking boobs and not really understanding why. If they want civil unions that are actually the same as marriage, I don't mind that.
Two things here:
First, if you don't remember ever picking your orientation, why would it be different for anyone else? The answer to the question of homosexuality being inborn is crucial to the question of the allowance of gay marriage.
Second, so your only issue with gay marriage is the use of the word "marriage?" If there is an option that is 100% functionally identical to "marriage," and we call it a "civil union," you have no problem with that?
As Scott has pointed out, the Republican party is no longer what it once was. The national deficit has skyrocketed under the current neo-Con administration, because they're more spend-happy than the vast majority of Democrats. McCain's tax plan is the same trickle-down Reganomics that's been ruining our economy for the past 8 years. If it hasn't really worked yet, why keep trying it?
Obama's tax plan puts high-income taxes back at Clinton-era levels and gives purchasing power back to the consumer. I think Obama is trying to stimulate another dot-com boom; by lowering taxes for middle-class individuals and small businesses, he's encouraging a proliferation of small upstart companies, the same sort of thing that led to prosperity under Clinton. Of course, our mounting debt is still a concern, but smartly addressing taxes is a good way to start on that. Combine that with, say, pulling out of Iraq, and I think we could probably get things back on track quite handily.
If they've decided not to teach it in school then you have to pick it up as a parent.
You bastard, I note your use of the word "parent". So you're fine with teenagers ending up with children they didn't want because they haven't been taught properly?
It's not the government's job to raise children and I never, ever want it to be.
::calmly categorizes gedavis next to Steve and Kilarny and decides not to respond to his posts::
We got another one ladies and gentlemen. Just ignore him.
Could be worse, I could be Republican and religious. :P
gedavids, other than your gay marriage stance, you sound to me like arealRepublican. You know, someone who would have voted for Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, or Lincoln. It's sad, but your people have all been disenfranchised. There simply are no candidates that even remotely match your viewpoints. You can vote for Democrats, the exact opposite of what you want. You can vote for a crazy third party, and even the libertarians are more insane this year than ever. Lastly, you can vote for the Republicans, which have almost nothing in common with the Republicans of the past. Even Ron Paul is too crazy with his stupid ideas about returning to the gold standard.
There are many people out there like yourself, and it seems you are voting for McCain simply because he's in the same party that used to stand for your ideology. However, that party's ideology is as different now from what you want as is the Democrats.Read thisto see what I'm talking about. Here's a quote from that article to give you an idea of what it's about.
...Many moderate Republicans still do not realize what has happened. They believe the Republican Party is still the same. They follow the Republican rhetoric of today because they haven't stopped to see the hypocrisy, the contradictions, and the slowly-changed priorities. Those moderate Republicans still supporting McCain are unwitting participants in an entirely new agenda...
As distasteful as it may be, I think the best strategy for real Republicans is to vote Democratic. It will force the new shitty Republican Party down further and further until it is on the same level as other crazy religious parties like the deceptively named Constitution Party. This will give a new Republican party, like the Republican party of old, a chance to emerge. It will take years, but it could definitely happen in our lifetimes. I assure you I am well aware of this. I haven't quite given up hope...yet. I know the Republican party is shit, but I don't like the Democrats and their "let's tax the rich cause they have money and there's a lot less of them to complain about it." I'm not for a flat tax, that's just too unfair, but why does the income need to be more graduated than it already is? Couldn't we just give everyone a .5% cut across the board and call it a day?
Realistically I'm on the fence here. On most social issues, I generally align with Democrats, but on fiscal issues I align with Republican plans. Realistically I don't have party, I'm a moderate Libertarian or something equally crazy and preposterous.
It's not the government's job to raise children and I never, ever want it to be.
Education of children and raising of children are completely different issues.
Besides, when there are obviously so many parents in the U.S. who don't teach their children some very important things, I'd much rather the government taught those children these things.
Realistically I'm on the fence here. On most social issues, I generally align with Democrats, but on fiscal issues I align with Republican plans. Realistically I don't have party, I'm a moderate Libertarian or something equally crazy and preposterous.
So why vote and support someone you disagree with? The platform that the present day Republicans represent is as far away from your ideals as is the Democratic platform. The libertarian party is more in line with you on paper, but the reality is that the people at the head of the party only stand for those ideals because they want the freedom to do crazy bullshit. The same goes for people like Ron Paul and his ilk.
Realistically I'm on the fence here. On most social issues, I generally align with Democrats, but on fiscal issues I align with Republican plans. Realistically I don't have party, I'm a moderate Libertarian or something equally crazy and preposterous.
So why vote and support someone you disagree with? The platform that the present day Republicans represent is as far away from your ideals as is the Democratic platform. The libertarian party is more in line with you on paper, but the reality is that the people at the head of the party only stand for those ideals because they want the freedom to do crazy bullshit. The same goes for people like Ron Paul and his ilk.
So vote for the Democrats, which are the exact opposite of what I want. That's more silly than voting Republican. At least I align with the Republican party some what.
So vote for the Democrats, which are the exact opposite of what I want. That's more silly as voting Republican. At least I align with the Republican party some what.
No, what Scott implied was, don't vote then (or for one of those minor chance-less parties). If nobody represents your views, or at least the majority of your views, why vote and skew the results?
No, what Scott implied was, don't vote them (or for one of those minor chance-less parties). If nobody represents your views, or at least the majority of your views, why vote and skew the results?
Personally I would vote anyway, I'm given a vote, so I will use it to indicate what I want. That's the entire purpose of voting. US politics are sadly horrendous since for every election there are only 2 views that have a chance of winning. Every other set of views is screwed and will go nowhere. That is a huge problem if you ask me. If I want to have someone who has my views to represent me, that should happen, I too should be represented, not just the 'majority' of the population, everyone should be represented. Seriously, when are you dropping the popularity contest and start electing a government?
Personally I would vote anyway, I'm given a vote, so I will use it to indicate what I want. That's the entire purpose of voting. US politics are sadly horrendous since for every election there are only 2 views that have a chance of winning. Every other set of views is screwed and will go nowhere. That is a huge problem if you ask me. If I want to have someone who has my views to represent me, that should happen, I too should be represented, not just the 'majority' of the population, everyone should be represented. Seriously, when are you dropping the popularity contest and start electing a government?
Don't ask me, I'm a disenfranchised third party.
Couldn't we just give everyone a .5% cut across the board and call it a day?
I'm not for tax cuts at all right now, but since both the candidates seem to want them this is what I propose. Don't pick it apart too much, I gave it all of five seconds of consideration.
No, I do ask you, the minorities have to speak up if they want to achieve anything. History has shown that on several occasions. Do you really think the Republicans and Democrats want to have more opposition? They already have a hard time beating each other in that one party will rule them all environment that's the US.
No, I do ask you, the minorities have to speak up if they want to achieve anything. History has shown that on several occasions. Do you really think the Republicans and Democrats want to have more opposition? They already have a hard time beating each other in that one party will rule them all environment that's the US.
Yes, the minorities should speak up. However, what do you do when there is no way to speak? You go in to vote, and you hate all the choices equally. Does that mean you should vote anyway? Any of the choices is just lying about what you want. There is no choice that matches your stance on the issues. What do you do? All you can do is write-in a vote, but even then it won't mean anything because you can only write-in someone who has applied for being a write-in candidate.
Comments
It is likely an issue of "economy of scale" issue. Covering Rhode Island in highways is a lot cheaper than covering Texas or Alaska in highways.
I want to stress again, I only prefer McCain. I think Obama is a good, smart individual and if he gets elected Tuesday we'll do alright. I really like his plans for health care.
But the issue is gay marriage, not what causes the gay. And I think Barack agrees with me that marriage is between a man and a woman.
As for the degree to which sexual orientation is inborn, let me ask you this: did you ever consciously pick your sexual orientation? Did there come a point in your life where you said "I like boobs?" or "I like penis?" Ever?
If homosexuality truly is an inborn trait, denying homosexuals the right to marry strips them of "the basic civil rights of man", as stated by the US Supreme Court (in Loving v. Virginia, the court case that found miscegenation laws to be illegal nationwide). I think Barack Obama is completely wrong on this issue, but I sure as hell won't let Sarah "God-Made-Me-Governer" Palin get anywhere closer to it than she already is.
Edit to provide reference to miscegenation laws. I don't like citing Wikipedia, but for a definition I'll do it.
We got another one ladies and gentlemen. Just ignore him.
There are many people out there like yourself, and it seems you are voting for McCain simply because he's in the same party that used to stand for your ideology. However, that party's ideology is as different now from what you want as is the Democrats. Read this to see what I'm talking about. Here's a quote from that article to give you an idea of what it's about. As distasteful as it may be, I think the best strategy for real Republicans is to vote Democratic. It will force the new shitty Republican Party down further and further until it is on the same level as other crazy religious parties like the deceptively named Constitution Party. This will give a new Republican party, like the Republican party of old, a chance to emerge. It will take years, but it could definitely happen in our lifetimes.
First, if you don't remember ever picking your orientation, why would it be different for anyone else? The answer to the question of homosexuality being inborn is crucial to the question of the allowance of gay marriage.
Second, so your only issue with gay marriage is the use of the word "marriage?" If there is an option that is 100% functionally identical to "marriage," and we call it a "civil union," you have no problem with that?
As Scott has pointed out, the Republican party is no longer what it once was. The national deficit has skyrocketed under the current neo-Con administration, because they're more spend-happy than the vast majority of Democrats. McCain's tax plan is the same trickle-down Reganomics that's been ruining our economy for the past 8 years. If it hasn't really worked yet, why keep trying it?
Obama's tax plan puts high-income taxes back at Clinton-era levels and gives purchasing power back to the consumer. I think Obama is trying to stimulate another dot-com boom; by lowering taxes for middle-class individuals and small businesses, he's encouraging a proliferation of small upstart companies, the same sort of thing that led to prosperity under Clinton. Of course, our mounting debt is still a concern, but smartly addressing taxes is a good way to start on that. Combine that with, say, pulling out of Iraq, and I think we could probably get things back on track quite handily.
I assure you I am well aware of this. I haven't quite given up hope...yet. I know the Republican party is shit, but I don't like the Democrats and their "let's tax the rich cause they have money and there's a lot less of them to complain about it." I'm not for a flat tax, that's just too unfair, but why does the income need to be more graduated than it already is? Couldn't we just give everyone a .5% cut across the board and call it a day?
Realistically I'm on the fence here. On most social issues, I generally align with Democrats, but on fiscal issues I align with Republican plans. Realistically I don't have party, I'm a moderate Libertarian or something equally crazy and preposterous.
Besides, when there are obviously so many parents in the U.S. who don't teach their children some very important things, I'd much rather the government taught those children these things.