The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I ask this because it seems to me that this country keeps getting worse and I'm not just speaking about the economy. It seems like the Republicans continue going further right and the Democrats are on the edge of left. It's so bad in fact that no one seems to be able to even see the middle any longer and are forced to "pick a side".

We are in a desperate situation and it isn't getting better and in fact, many are predicting it to get worse just after elections and it may not last that long. It is believed that our current administration and European leaders are hanging on by the seats of their pants to try and secure the presidency but it will eventually collapse.

Obviously this isn't an election about changing abortion laws, fighting for or against gay rights, or even if rich people need to share. It's about the economy or at least it should be. 

I know several people who voted for Obama who are switching to Romney for this reason but they are basically Independents anyway ... but most of the Democrats I know are still pro -Obama even though they admit they do not see things getting better.  If a person admittingly thinks things will continue to get worse why would they not want to switch?  Bad mouth Reaganomics all you want but we haven't been in this bad of a shape since Reagan took office.

It was a mistake to vote Bush a second term but I think a lot of that had to do with the choice of Kerry and the continuing war. As well I think its a mistake to give Obama 4 more but other Democrats are "faithful". 

So back to my original question. What would it take to get you to switch? Even Republicans for that matter.


This came out this morning and got me to thinking about this.

I can answer your question, but first, I want to disagree with your overall statement that both sides are moving farther apart.  I just don't think that's true.  The Democrats own the middle right now.  Obama is basically a centrist.  He's up at the convention talking about hawkish war policy, which certainly isn't from the left.  Also, you had many Democrats in the house vote against Obamacare.  The right isn't working like that right now.

But, to answer the question about what it would take for me to vote for the GOP, it really depends.

I can vote against Democrats fairly easily, and do from time to time.  I voted for Charlie Crist, while he ran as an independent, but he was pro-life, pro-gun.  However, I was drawn to his breaking from his party and I thought he was good for education down here, something that's important to me and my family.

I would also vote against a Democrat in a Todd Akin situation, where I felt that even if the person held views that I shared, that he or she was a disgrace to the party.  However, in a case like that, I'd probably vote for a 3rd party.  I also hold certain views higher than others.  If someone from the GOP ran on traditional fiscal responsibility and tax cuts, but also was very passionate about separating religion with government, that could steal my vote, as well.

So back to my original question. What would it take to get you to switch?

A candidate that does not want to drag us back 100 years socially.

With that said, I'm an Independent. I have no issues voting based on who I think can do the job. The difference is that I don't care about the economy as much as I care about social issues.

I'd support a Republican candidate if they did two simple things:

1) Publicly denounce the Tea Party for being the evil divisive slime that they are.
2) Commit to maintaining a separation of church and state.

Locally,and even at the state level,I don't care if you're Democrat,Republican,Purple Dinosaur,talking Marijuana leaf.

I also think what I want and cared about has changed,when I first really noticed politics,I was on the farm.I'm not a farmer anymore,I have several friends that do make a living in rural Missouri.I see myself as the working poor....

I felt nationally the Democrats moved towards me,and the Republican moved away from me....

Democrats ---> Me------------------->Republicans...I still see myself as an independent,at the moment I just see the Democrats lining up with more things I like right now.I think  in my lifetime,the Democrats will go away from me,and the Republicans will come back toward me,or maybe some other party

I liked Reagan, Liked G.H. Bush,hated Clinton,voted for Bush twice and regret it :-[,voted Obama,and will vote for him again....I really liked John Edwards,then he joined John Kerry,and I didn't like him anymore,I felt he became john Kerry Bitch I didn't like...

I never liked the over-zealous religious guys,I feel they always want to retard the country,and I want to move forward...

Right now I'm sick of the Republicans telling me the World is going to end,try to scare me with everything approach....It reminds me of what G.W.Bush did,It reminds me of religion,and Fire & Brimstone B.S...I want no part of it...

I left the GOP years ago. I feel that voting party lines just maintains the two-party plutocracy. I encourage people to stop looking at what letter is next to the candidates name.

*falls out of chair, laughs uncontrollably, stops reading thread*

Things like this are why I as a person registered with no party affiliation are feeling a large disconnect with people from the GOP, Tea Party, and basically anything considered the right. They move so far to the right that they cannot even fathom Obama is more in the middle than they think he is. Also, they never use any sort of facts to try and make a case. They simply pretend any sort of argument is not worth responding to. Amazingly the only ones who do try to use any "facts" are the complete kooks such as birthers, people  who think he took the US flag off Air Force One, and people who believe he is Muslim.

When you don't belong behind a line, there is no line to cross.

As already stated, the idea that "both sides are extremists" is just silly.  There are many self-proclaimed "conservative Democrats" in the United States Congress (the 25 members of the Blue Dogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition) are an easy place to start).  In contrast, I challenge anyone to name a self-proclaimed "liberal Republican" in Congress.  Hell, even finding a Republican that's willing to proclaim themselves as "moderate" is a Herculean task.

That being said:  I would not be willing to vote for a Republican at the national level while the party continues to be controlled by extremists.  But to be fair, I would also have a hard time voting for a Green (even though they tend to mesh better with my values, ideologically) because I learned the lessons of 2000 all too well: generally speaking, a vote for Green is a vote for Team Red, just as a vote for Libertarian is a vote for Team Blue.

In order for me to cross party lines today, three conditions would need to apply:

1) not for federal office
2) an extraordinarily unacceptable Dem candidate (e.g. anti-evolution)
3) a libertarian-minded GOP candidate that does not want to dismantle the safety net (unlikely but not impossible in CA, especially given our recent election changes)

Here's a better question. Can you name a "Blue Dog" democrat in an urban district (not suburban)? Can you name a moderate Republican from an urban district? Can you name an extreme liberal in a rural district? What makes one "extreme", is an unyielding, uncompromising nature. Both sides are guilty of this. Which is why I consider them both to be extreme. I can see good ideas in both sides. I have that luxury as an independent. They don't, if they want to have a job in government.

Debating who is middle and who isn't is silly to me. I think it's natural to "think" of oneself or line of thinking as the middle ground.

More on topic in this post alone what I perceive as liberals several said they could never vote Republican and gave reasons why. None of which is the economy which polls would say is the most important issue today.  I see the same thing with general Republicans that I know who would vote for Rush Limbaugh as the National Breakdance Instructor if he ran. That's a crazy scary thought to me that the majority of voters find reasons to vote fore their guy/gal rather than look at the main issues. i find many conversations on here a microcosm of this where people will argue a point for days with neither ever actually listening to the other.

Maybe it's me but I never expect to get everything. Heck, there is no one that believes the way I do about everything ... at least not running for anything important. This has always caused me to decide what's most important in every, election whether it's local or national, and vote that way. I can't dwell on the differences or I'd never select anyone.

This just doesn't go for politics. Even Christians will break each other down until they find difference. Is Jesus Lord? Do you believe in the virgin birth? Are you Catholic or Protestant? Southern Baptist or Northern Baptist? Baptism by sprinkling or immersion and will continue until they find something to separate them. It should be the other way where we find common goals and work from there.

For instance ... I am pro life and you are pro choice. Well neither of us wants to kill babies so lets figure out how we can keep that from happening rather than pointing out the other is wrong. You want condoms in school and I want to teach abstinence. Let's do both and see which seems to work better. If we can't even agree to at least decide what's important how will we ever quit fighting over differences and actually accomplish anything?

....and thus begins the road to understanding.

Economically speaking the parties are no different. Obama extended the bush tax cuts and bush added an unpaid prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Obama's health care plan is a republican plan, that's a boondoggle to the insurance industry.

The only tangible differences are social, and I could see myself voting republican when they start accepting evolution as fact and stop pushing pseudoscience as policy.

Why are you splitting hairs?  Congressional Democrats (as a party) span a wide breadth of the political spectrum, from liberal to conservative.  In contrast, congressional Republicans span from conservative to... ultra-conservative.  And all you have to do is ask them; they will vigorously protest being labeled "liberal" or even "moderate."

Yes, there are individuals within each party that fit this description.  But that's missing the point.

At a federal level, within the Democratic Party, compromises are made between the more liberal factions and the more conservative factions (and yes, the liberals usually get more of what they want... but they outnumber conservatives, so that's not unreasonable).  Within the Republican Party, these compromises are between "hard right" and "incredibly hard right," because liberal Republicans no longer exist.

One of the things I find most annoying is the false "both sides do it" narrative that the media leans upon; Democrats-say-this and Republicans-say-that, so no one is right or wrong and it's all just "opinion."

Again, see how many congressional Republicans self-identify as "moderate."

"Moderate" has become an epithet within the GOP; an accusation to hurl at your opponent during the primary.

You didn't ask about specific topics.

I would not vote for a Republican for "the economy" because the vast majority of Republicans would act to recreate the conditions that (in my humble opinion) blew up our economy in the first place.  You yourself just touched on it when you talked of "bad mouth[ing] Reaganomics;" if bad mouthing Reaganomics is off of the table, what, exactly, do you expect a liberal to say about Republican economic policies?

To wit: what are the Republican ideas to fix the economy?

- tax cuts (heavily weighted towards corporations and the rich "job creators")
- less regulation
- eliminate unions

Why would I vote for a Republican based on "the economy" when their ideas to fix it are precisely the opposite of what I would like to see happen?

Are you saying that we should work together to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare?  Because that's what the Democrats have been proposing for years.


Already done.  Compared to comprehensive sex education, abstinence-only education has been an unmitigated failure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html
http://www.moappp.org/Documents/articles/2006/SantelliAbstinenceonlyEducationReviewPaper.pdf
http://pol285.blog.gustavus.edu/files/2009/08/AfY_Abstinence-Only_Effect.pdf
http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2807%2900426-0/abstract
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2005to2009/2006-failure-of-abstinence-only-education.html
etc.

A disturbing fact from the last link (emphasis added):

"Indeed, recent studies suggest that abstinence curricula put minors at greater health risk than they would have been had they not taken any sex education course at all."

I'm not even sure what to do with this.

When one party actively (and prominently) opposes the concept of compromise (here (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/09/tea-party-senate-candidate-says-compromise-means-democrats-agree-with-republicans-videos/) is one example of many), how can you expect anything to be accomplished?

To be fair, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts largely because the Republicans insisted on holding other items of action hostage (the New START treaty was a big one).

Obamneycare is essentially a Republican plan, but it's a pre-2008 Republican plan.  Now, the Republican idea of addressing healthcare consists entirely of tort reform and reducing government regulation (unless privatizing Medicare counts).

If Obama suddenly became a Republican I would cross party lines rather quickly!!!!!  ;D

The two parties are very different right now.  As Spider stated, the GOP platform is basically:

- social conservatism
- anti-science (I have kept trying to rephrase this to be more even-handed, but I don't know what else to call it -- global warming denial, anti-evolution)
- deregulation
- tax cuts
- increase in military spending

I do agree with some free-market ideas that Republicans have and there are aspects of deregulation I can get on board with.  I also am a moderate when it comes to certain social issues (guns), and am open to serious overhauls of Social Security and Medicare.

However, I generally am more opposed to all of the bullet-points above.  So, if I were going to "cross party lines", the GOP would have to pretty drastically change their platform.

I do have problems with the Democrats, but in those areas, the Republicans are the same (or farther from my position) -- Defense Spending, War on Drugs, etc.

Here is the rub though CF. You are using a great talking point but that is about all it is. Factually, we have been worse. There was a point we were losing 750K jobs a month and people were in a panic. I dare say that no one is satisfied where we are but anyone who still says we are not better than four years ago either has a short memory or an agenda.

I don't get involved in political discussions, as a rule.  But I want to give credit to Phish for this profound statement.  Bravo.

Yes, I'm better off.

But the question "are you better off 4 years ago" is a bad question.  These are huge economic swings caused by decades and decades or policy, the global economic climate, etc.  Simply judging policy by where you are in a limited window just isn't smart.

Honestly, I expect the economy will improve regardless of who is elected, just based on its cyclical nature.

^^^^ You and others may be better off as individuals (or fooled into naively believing you are better off), but the economy as a whole is not better. The country is deeper in debt and the government is doing absolutely nothing to fix it. They are treating the symptoms instead of the sickness, which is spending. Everyone will have to downgrade their standard of living and suffer to an extent to fix this problem and it will be painful. It will be much worse and much more painful if the same spending and economic policies are allowed to continue. You cannot grow the country out of debt. Consumer debt cannot drive the economy any longer if we are to fix this. Interest rates need to be increased. Currently they are kept artificially low. Yay, cheap loans to go in debt with and low rates of return on savings and investments, the banking double whammy at its finest. Social programs have to be scaled back away from this entitlement generation that has learned to leech off of the rest of society. So while you may think the economy is better, it actually is not. It's all been propped up and is an illusion. They can and will keep the printing presses at the treasury running 24/7 and that will be our undoing. The sooner and quicker this whole thing crashes the sooner and quicker it will turn around. It's gonna happen, whether you want to accept it or not is the real question.

I agree that debt is out of control.

But it's not fair (or accurate) to blame Obama for a large increase, without recognizing that he's in line with previous presidents.  A considerable amount of the "Obama debt" is rollover from Bush's deals -- namely the wars and the tax cuts, TARP, etc.  Yes, Obama did the stimulus and deserves credit/blame for that decision.  I just don't think the GOP is offering solutions either.  The Republicans want to cut spending, but they will cause debt increases with their tax structure.  Tax cuts are spending, too.

Neither party is serious about dealing with the debt, which will require a combination of progressive tax structure, serious re-tooling of Medicare/Social Security, and a considerable cut in defense.

Change you can believe in, huh. Being "in line" with previous presidents is "change" or the "same" ?  Obama had his chance and he squandered it away. Time to move on as he is in way over his head and not an effective leader.

As far as the economy is concerned, straight from the horses mouth, "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
- Barack Obama

4 years ago we weren't as bad off as 1980. That's a fact. If that's a fact I really don't know how 4 years ago you would consider anyone in a better shape? If you are considering the economy based on yourself then good for you. As for me and my co-workers we are at less than half of staff we had 4 years ago, haven't had a raise in over 5 years, and in fact, have had our salaries reduced. Do you have any idea how much prices have gone up in 5 years? Any idea how many of our former coworkers are still out of work or underemployed for over two years?

4 years ago (I just looked) we were permitting over 130 new "engineering" permits a year. In the past 365 days we have issued 40.

I'm curious ... where is your benchmark?

Oh yes ... my house is now worth almost 20% less now than I owe on it when it was previously at 75% LTV .

I can't really speak to 1980 with any real authority as I was alive but the economy was not on my radar. About the only thing I can remember economy wise from the 70's & 80's is gas lines. My benchmark is the fact that the stock market is more stable than 4 years ago, we are not losing as many jobs a month as we were four years ago, and while your home might be at the lowest level now it took its steepest dip approximately four years ago. Like I said, no one should be happy with where we are but I don't see people in a panic like they were four years ago. Everything was dropping like flies four years ago. Growth has been slow but it is still growth rather then the bottom falling out of everything.

Things like this don't happen or get solved overnight and you cannot look at one office of people as a representation of signs of improvement.

I think there's been some big changes in certain areas, but not in others.  Obama did make a pretty sizable change to health care.  And he ended a war that had lingered for a long time.  And he did the stimulus and did some stuff with student loans.  If that's not enough for you, fine -- but getting health care passed is a gigantic accomplishment.

The way that Washington handles debt seems no different under Obama than Bush.  But it won't under Romney or anyone else either until the parties are serious about addressing the cause of the debt and not simplifying it to one thing, like "spending".  It's bigger than that and will take considerable sacrifices as a country to both pay taxes on the high end, as well as to cut or restructure entitlements.  It will also require a shift in THINKING (not just policy) towards war, and possibly look into new forms of revenue.


I understand that was campaign talk and that's fine -- don't vote for him if that's something that you're concerned about.  It's worse than we thought and Obama didn't have bipartisan support to deal with it in a meaningful way.  The president doesn't "fix" the economy, anyway.  It's an oversimplified statement.

The only accomplishment to Obamacare was getting and keeping it passed and ramming it down the throat of the US citizens. In the long term, long after everyone has forgotten or tried to forget about our current Idiot in office, people are going to realize how bad an idea Obamacare was. Covering birth control on medical insurance ? Really, I mean effin' really. How in the hell is the ability to get pregnant a medical condition ? What next to waste money on ? Wigs and platform shoes for bald midgets ? Crack pipes for crackheads ? Rainbows and butterflies for sad people ? What a fucking joke this country is becoming. Just like the Dolphins have become the joke of the NFL. The USA is becoming the joke of the world. We might as well elect Ross and Ireland. They might not do any better but I sure as hell doubt that they could do any worse than the current clown administration. History won't be kind to Obama, count on it !!!!

The ability to get pregnant is not a medical condition? Do go on.

I've voted across party lines many times.  In upstate NY the Republicans and Democrats often flip parties just to run against each other, and there are a lot of Democrat Judges who end up Democrat-Conservative-Independant on the ticket. 

It's next to impossible in my district to be a straight ticket anything.

Really, it's pretty simple. The ability to get pregnant is not a medical issue whatsoever. Being pregnant is a medical issue. Just like a man having ability to get someone pregnant is not a medical condition. There are no symptoms or medical diagnosis for not being pregnant. Insurance companies should not be on the hook for the convienience of people to get their rocks off without any responsibility. It's simple, you don't want to get pregnant, DON'T FUCK. If you do buy your own goddamn birth control. Just more of the same from the "entitlement" population that thinks they are exempt from life choices and personal responsibility and wants a handout. If you can't afford birth control you should be focusing on changing your situation instead of spreading your legs. If not take resposibility for your own life choices. The only other person that should be paying for birth control, other than the female, is the one screwing that female...
.

You are aware that most insurance companies already cover birth control, right? (I know mine does.)

For me, I'd easily vote across party lines - I don't necessarily hold beliefs that are to the right on issues like evolution, the economy, etc.

However, I am "to the right" on issues like abortion, the contraceptive mandate, same-sex marriage, etc etc. I would need a democrat who's not so far to the left that they think these things are abhorrent. I mean, it's pretty clear - except to those who're so far to the left they don't understand, these things are perfectly reasonable, rational, cogent, able to be accepted by open-minded people of education, good grooming, and above-average intelligence.

I took a quiz on http://www.isidewith.com/ the other day. Of course, I was unsurprisingly in favor of Mitt Romney 91%. However, I was 68% w/ Barack Obama. I would suggest we all take it. It's quite eye-opening.

Some of the discussion in this thread is pretty silly. To suggest the Republicans have moved far to the right of the country on this one is ludicrous. They haven't. Remember, the last election, in 2010, was overwhelmingly won by hardcore, far-to-the-right Republicans. It's no mandate, of course, as we also have a far-to-the-left President and Democratic party. Frankly, I think CF's initial point stands. We're a divided nation. Half of us think Gay marriage is the offshoot of the sexual revolution, and will inevitably be another failed experiment with harsh consequences for the fruit of marriage: children. The other half, w/o a whole lot more explanation, believes these beliefs to be out of date and intolerant and bigoted. Look at the language on here from people like Buddha: "I don't want someone to drag the country back 100 years." Is this conciliatory or centrist at all? Uh, no. It's far left. And ridiculous.

But that's the point. We're divided. I think if we realize that, come to terms with it, and remember ol' libtard/conservaturd down the road ain't so bad after all, it'd be a little easier for us all to come to terms with. But that, of course, is not what Rachel Maddow or O'Reilly want you to do. They want you to be inflamed. They want discord. It sows ratings.

For one, I can get along w/ everybody. Really, that's my politics.

Insurance companies already cover stuff like Viagra.  So if they are going to cover that, why not birth control?

Consequences for the fruit of marriage? WTF does that even mean?
Heaven forbid if I want all people to have the same rights. Keep hiding your bigotry behind the bible there, SC.

Also, I took the quiz. I'm 98% green party, 96% Dem, 66% libertarian, and 5% republican. Interesting result with the green party.

What are you saying here, exactly?

Are you saying that being in favor of criminalizing abortion, outlawing same-sex marriage, or allowing employers to opt-out of healthcare coverage is "reasonable and rational?"  Or are you saying that opposing those things is unreasonable and irrational?

I would also ask you the following: do you think it's "reasonable" to be anti-evolution in favor of teaching children all the various ideas about the origin of life (including creationism and intelligent design), so that they may make an informed decision for themselves?

I say the GOP has moved far to the right (at the federal level) because the party is monolithically conservative; there are no more self-proclaimed liberal Republicans, and there are hardly any self-proclaimed moderate Republicans.  In contrast, there are quite a few proudly conservative Democrats, and a large number of self-proclaimed moderates (I daresay the majority).

None of that has anything to do with who won which election.  The fact that the majority of the people who showed up to vote in 2010 preferred much more conservative candidates tells us nothing about a shift in the party itself.

And yet, while these people ostensibly want to outlaw same-sex marriage "for the children," they have mysteriously remained silent on the topics of outlawing divorce or single parenthood, both of which are much more "harmful" to children than allowing two gay parents to get married.

The ultimate irony is that you will not see a single conservative politician in this republic stand up for denying homosexuals the right to have children.  So at the end of the day, if homosexuality isn't outlawed (which is not on the table), and homosexual parenthood isn't outlawed (which is also not on the table), the only thing that banning same-sex marriage does "for the children" is to prevent their parents from getting married.

This position is so transparently full of holes that it seems obvious that the real goal is simply to deny rights to homosexuals; i.e. bigotry.

If they choose on their own to cover birth control before August 1, 2012 (I doubt it, but it's possible) then that's one thing. They made the choice to do it as a company. The government shouldn't mandate it at all.


Erectile Dysfunction is a medical condition that Viagra treats. Read it again, Medical Condition !!! What medical condition does birth control treat ??? I'll wait.............

Endometreosis
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)
PMS
PMDD
amenorrhea
Irregular periods

Birth control is just hormones.

That question was just full of ignorance on the topic.

Good I'm glad someone answered. I'll trust your post on those and won't even fact check because I know that birth control does actually treat a few medical conditions. Now since those are actual medical conditions I'm sure you would agree that they should be covered. So are you saying that those conditions should be covered and coverage for preventing pregnancy should not be covered. Or do you think that any woman who wants birth control should be covered ?

What a slap in the face. So basically since you do not agree with someone on these positions they are closed minded, uneducated, slovenly, and have below average intelligence. You cetainly cannot get along with everyone if that is how you feel about them. Slap in the face with one hand and pat them on the back with the other, is that your philosophy?

Asking a question is ignorant ? Since you don't know the reason I asked the question, I think your statement is ignorant. Run along now...

Insurance companies WANT to cover birth control.  It saves them a lot of money.  If it's a question of finances, there's no question:  Private industry makes money when they offer birth control for free.

I think SC is talking about the moral disagreement with employers paying for birth control when they're morally opposed to it.  I don't respect that position on the grounds that I don't want my employer's religious beliefs affecting my insurance.  Do Jehovah's Witness bosses not cover blood transfusions?  If my boss is a homeopath, can they refuse to provide actual medicine?

Now, you can you the above paragraph to discredit the whole idea of an insurance mandate and that's a position that I disagree with, but at least understand.  But if we're operating on the idea that employers are providing insurance, I don't think they can pick and choose based on their own personal morals.

If they really wanted to prevent pregnancies they would cover male vasectomys also, which they don't. Not only are they more effective at preventing pregnancy. It would save money over the long run since it's a one time procedure as opposed to a never ending trip to the pharmacy every month. Not to mention that it screams of gender discrimination not to offer birth control to the "other gender". For a bunch of people that scream "equality" every time they have the chance around here, I don't hear anyone complaining about the lack of a male alternative for birth control. Sounds kinda hypocritical to me. Like Barney Fife said, "nip it in the bud". With a vasectomy it's all a moot point and you would save time, money, gas, pill taking errors, and some of the pregnancies that still do occur. So since it's all about money, why don't they offer male birth control as an option since it would save money.

Because men don't get pregnant.


But please provide a link.  As I understand it, (almost) all insurance companies are more than happy to cover vasectomies.  I think your facts are backwards.

I think most insurance companies do cover vasectomys. 

Men don't get pregnant but they are the main component in a woman getting pregnant. I think we are talking about two different things. I'm not concerned with what is covered by insurance by their own free will. Even though something may be covered, it is not covered by a mandate from the federal government. Each insurance company can determine what it will cover and what it will not and base their premiums accordingly. Not all insurance companies cover vasectomies, I know that for a fact. The largest insurance company in the state told my friend and his wife on 3 separate occasions that since it's an elective procedure that it would not be covered. So since it's more effective and cheaper why isn't the government mandating it be covered as an option ?

OK.   So, let's figure this out.  First, we have to work out the facts.

You went from saying that insurance companies don't cover vasectomies.  Now you're backing off to say that not all companies cover vasectomies.  So, we need to figure out what the truth is there.  Do you have knowledge of a major insurance provider that doesn't cover vasectomies that otherwise covers birthing procedures.

As for government's involvement, I don't know about whether employers have to cover vasectomies or not.  Do you?  Because your previous "fact" on vasectomies was wrong.

We need facts correct before we can start building our opinions and criticisms.  ...but I'm funny like that.

The fruit of marriage is an old-timey term for children. Knowing there were people who wouldn't know what that meant, I put a colon in and defined it in the sentence. Did you see that?

Now, see, you don't want all people to have the same rights, do you? If a person believes they're born with pedophilia, do you want them to have the rights to marry children? If a (female) person falls in love with their brother do you want them to be able to get married? If a person lives and grows and during their entire life, has a strong sexual attraction to animals, do you want them to be able to marry the animal?

You'll react badly to this and say that gay marriage and all of the above aren't the same thing. Allow me to ask you ahead of time to distinguish them.

Finally, I would ask that you actually try not to just repeat slogans. I don't mention/haven't mentioned the bible at all. I don't need to - the argument against gay marriage and the morality of gay sex is a natural law argument.


You read that incredibly poorly. Please re-read it. I'm saying that I would want a democrat to not think that someone who didn't agree w/ their social positions on matters such as abortion, gay marriage, etc, to not think that that person was a bigot, close-minded, and on and on. Because (as this thread indicates - just look at Buddha's
"response") many of them do, (even when you respond kindly) I it makes it tough, at times, to cross party lines.


I'm saying I'm in favor of them (although you overstate - I'm in favor if overturning Roe, and allowing the states to come up w/ intelligent legislative approaches to abortion, including but not necessarily outright criminalization, I'm in favor of an amendment to state constitutions that would restrict marriage to adult, non-consanguine men and women only, and I'm in favor of health insurance companies being able to offer whatever they want, rather than being forced to offer birth control), and that intelligent people of good-will can likewise hold those positions. The main difficulty today, in my opinion, is both parties screaming at the other that they are 1) bigots or 2) economically illiterate. Neither side can appropriately be called these things.

And, to answer, no, I do not believe children should be taught, in science class, that there are other options outside of evolution. Not at the moment. Perhaps some day some genius will, in light of better evidence, conclude that something other than what we term evolution occurred.  However, until that day comes, evolution is the only option. Now, inside evolution, I think children should be taught the options: punctuated equilibrium vs. "consistent speedism," etc. I would like there to be an indication that we do not have a good theory on abiogenesis yet, but, I think children are smart enough to figure that out.


Certainly a fair argument.


I agree w/ you, they have stayed silent. It is a disgrace. But, because politicians are inconsistent does not mean that the position itself is, correct? Remember, my opposition to gay marriage is based on natural law, not what a random political party does.

Now, had they been consistent, we wouldn't be here. Divorce, aboriton, contraception, gay marriage - they're all extensions, as I said, of the sexual revolution, and of a counter-Christian, counter-natural law ethos. Interestingly, contraception and abortion were not issues pressed upon us by federal or state legislatures, but rather by the court. But I digress. Either way, I don't really see the force behind this objection.

Now, the "for the children" argument. Until recently, you're right, there was only anecdotal support behind it. But what of the Regnerus study? Now, there is published, (soon-to-be) peer reviewed work, which may eventually come to prove the point that children are, in some way, disadvantaged by being raised by homosexual couples.

That said, again, the entirety of the argument is currently based on natural law, which I've stated here before. Until you points out the flaw in that argument, I would say that you haven't met your burden to prove that the position is bigotry.

SC, they're not the same thing because of a little thing called consent. Children cannot consent to be in a relationship with an adult. Neither can an animal. Brothers and sisters - past the legal age of consent - who cares? A matter of fact it is LEGAL in a few states.

Badger, vasectomies are covered by insurance companies. Always have been. The problem is it's permanent and does not work when you just don't want to get pregnant right now, but maybe in a few years.

With that, I'm out of this convo. I made a promise to myself not to get involved with these kinds of things. I'd rather be out doing thank yapping online. No one here is going to change their mind.

Completely incorrect. Children are merely divested of the legal right to consent. It is society's judgment that they ought not have it. Why can't it be society's judgment that those of the same sex cannot consent to relations/marriage w/ one another? Animals can likewise grant or deny consent. They just cannot do so verbally. If the animal consents, why should the person be prosecuted? Please explain.

Now, in addition, I would like to hear you do 2 things for me: point out one state in the union that allows blood-related brothers and sisters to commit incest w/o penalty. One. Likewise, I would like to hear you formally state that you consider it bigotry akin to racism to rail against adult consensual incest.

Please, go ahead.

That wasn't the question.

Do you believe that it is "reasonable and rational" to advocate for the de-emphasis of teaching evolution, in favor of teaching alternate ideas like creationism or intelligent design?

You throw out the term "natural law" as if it is an established point of fact.

There is no part of "natural law" that demands that the only purpose of sex (or marriage, for that matter) is procreation.  The fact that human females (and some other female animals, like dolphins) do not go into "heat" (i.e. a clearly identifiable period of reproductive receptiveness) indicates that we have evolved in such a manner that non-reproductive sex is wired into us.

Do you think that someone who calls for homosexuality to be criminalized could be accurately termed a bigot?  Why or why not?

As I explained later, the gaping holes in the "think of the children!" logic for banning same-sex marriage indicate that such laws are intended primarily to punish homosexuals by denying them basic rights.  Such actions should be fairly classified as bigotry.

You have two major problems with your argument.

The first is that the study you cite (notwithstanding other studies that conclude the opposite (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15504280802177615#preview)) says nothing about how children with unmarried same-sex parents fare vs. children wiith married same-sex parents, which is the question at hand.

Remember to keep your eyes on the ball: the policy in question is not, "Should same-sex couples be permitted to raise children?",  but rather, "Should same-sex couples (with or without children) be permitted to marry?"  So the question that the Regnerus study is proposing to answer is a Trojan horse; no one is advocating to eliminate same-sex parenthood.

The second major problem with your argument is that a sizable amount of data shows marriage increases the stability and durability of a family, and there is no evidence to support the claim that this increased stability and durability is negated if the parents are of the same sex.  So when the choice is between "unmarried same-sex couple raising a child" and "married same-sex couple raising a child," the latter is better for the child.

Rhode Island.

 

You're misstating the question at hand.

The real policy question in your scenario is whether the restrictions on age of sexual consent for minors should be repealed.  This is not a question of bigotry towards "pedophile adults," but rather a question as to the age at which society allows a person to make this decision for themselves.  There is nothing objective about the age of 18 as a turning point; the only objective measurement of when a person is ready for sex is the physical ability to reproduce (puberty).  And if someone wants to make the argument that the age of consent should be puberty, have at it; it's certainly a lot closer to historical norms than 18 is.

As for anti-incest laws, I think are an unfair comparison.  They have two purposes:

1) to prevent the health risk to inbred children (which our society would assume responsibility for)
2) to prevent clan-centric civil rights abuses (e.g. a rural patriarch having a compound with multiple generations of inbred offspring)

In a hypothetical world where incestuous coupling was allowed, but required mandatory sterilization first, most of these arguments go away.  However, I think mandatory sterilization laws are much more dangerous than laws banning specific activity, and I can understand why the current policy is preferred.

I think you know what I meant. You guys like to twist words around here. Specifically, I was talking about Obamacare mandates not insurance company decisions on benefits.  Again, I'm not talking insurance companies decisions to cover birth control or vasectomies. I'm talking about Obamacare covering vasectomies in their mandatory coverage for insurance. The facts are that there are SOME insurance companies that cover vasectomies 100% with nothing out of pocket, Some insurance companies cover vasectomies in certain situations, Some insurance companies don't cover elective procedures, and some insurance companies that do cover vasectomies make you meet your deductible before coverage begins. So if a vasectomy costs $500-$1000 as listed here, http://www.vasectomy.com/articledetail.asp?siteid=V&ArticleId=10 (http://www.vasectomy.com/articledetail.asp?siteid=V&ArticleId=10). And a per the information here, http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/11/17/survey-average-health-insurance-deductible-is-now-1200/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/11/17/survey-average-health-insurance-deductible-is-now-1200/), the average deductible is $1200. So depending on how much of your deductible you have met you may get coverage or you may have to pay for the whole procedure.

So if you read what I said.


Now read the quote below. Located at the same link, http://www.vasectomy.com/articledetail.asp?siteid=V&ArticleId=10 (http://www.vasectomy.com/articledetail.asp?siteid=V&ArticleId=10). I highlighted some words for you, since as you say, you're funny like that.





So it seems to me that my "fact" on vasectomies was factually accurate. You implying that 100% of all vasectomies is 100% covered by 100% of all insurance companies is the one that is wrong.

Another fact is that before the gubment mandated"female" birth control went into effect. SOME insurance companies made a choice to cover female contraceptives, SOME made a choice offer coverage for certain medical conditions, and SOME made a choice not to offer coverage at all.

So the fact is that before Obamacare, female birth control may or may not have been covered by insurance companies depending on the company and situation. Conversely, vasectomies also may or may not have been covered by insurance companies depending on the company and situation.

Now that you know that I'm specifically referring to what Obamacare "covers" in their mandate. Not what may or may not have been "covered" by specific insurance companies before Obamacare was passed. I will ask my questions again.

Why was Obamacare written only to include "no cost" female birth control, which is less effective and costs the insurance company more over time ? Why not include a mandate that includes vasectomies at "no cost" as an alternative if the patient makes that choice if it fits their situation ? Do you think some women might feel a benefit of not having to take or remember to take a potentially dangerous pill everyday. Why choose to discriminate against either gender if you want equality ?

Seems to me that everyone here that cries for equality only wants pick and choose equality on their terms. Hypocrisy at its finest !!!

If that is the question, then, no, I do not think that reasonable nor rational.


I would suggest to you that if you're denying natural law exists (I don't think you are, but, to be cautious I will respond) then we have nothing to discuss, as, unless we are all under pains, and likewise have the capability to comprehend right from wrong naturally, we cannot really even begin to discuss this as though it were a thing to be argued.

Now, proceeding on, the natural law argument would be as follows: since the biological purpose of sex is generation, that, correspondingly, unless the sex you involve yourself in is in some way of a generative nature, then it is immoral.

Now, your response is that the hardwired, non-procreative periods of a woman's cycle indicate that non-generative sex is ok. I think we have a difficulty here, as I believe you've pressed your point too far. Let me explain:

What the non-procreative period of a woman's cycle would prove, at best, is that, otherwise generative sex which doesn't result is pregnancy and generation is not immoral. But no farther. It would not prove that sex which is intentionally executed in a way which is categorically non-procreative is moral. I think that's fairly clear, non-nitpicky distinction.

Thus, the generative requirement still stands, and the non-procreative parts of a woman's cycle does not invalidate this, or leave an exception so wide that homosexuals can fit in. Now, do you have a bone to pick w/ this? I would love to discuss this further with you.


Depends. If one called for such a criminalization based solely on the belief that homosexuals were icky, or some other such flimsy justification, then, yeah, I'd say so. If they did so based on the natural law argument, no, I don't think so. It's a valid argument.

I agree the "think of the children" argument doesn't seem to motivate too many people in certain contexts. Obviously, the "think of the children" argument motivates you in the context that, were gays allowed to marry, their families may be more stable, and therefore provide for the children they raise in a more preferential way. However, obviously, the "think of the children" arguments from the right do not motivate you. That's fine, but, what I'd say is that these aren't gaping holes in arguments: rather, they are just emotional hooks for the electorate. Politics is different from philosophy, as we all know, and frankly, do you honestly think that most of the electorate can cogently speak about natural law? No. Wouldn't it fly over many people's heads? Possibly. So, candidates of all stripes shoot for what they think will work best. That's not inconsistency (on a political level) it's politics.


Actually, I think I was responding to your original argument that people scream that gay marriage hurts children. Anyway, whatever, let's get to your objections.

As to Obj 1:
I doubt the study had enough data to measure the difference between those children raised by married vs. unmarried same-sex families. Here's the issue: gay marriage has only been a reality in the US for 9 years. I believe the study restricted itself to those families in the US. I may be wrong. Anyway: because of the recent nature of gay marriage in this country, it would mean that there's only going to be a few people who were raised by parents of homosexuals who are married to one another. I don't know that there's enough of a sample size.

Even then, what does "married" mean: does it mean currently married, or does it mean married and then divorced. For example, a person who was born in 2003, in MA, shortly after Goodrich, and raised exclusively by homosexuals, who were married for the first 5 years of their life, and then divorced for the last 4, and then raised by only one of the two - are they raised by married, or unmarried homosexuals? I... well, how would you define it? I don't know. And so, while I'd admit your objections basis, I don't think it has the force you think it does.

Obj 2:
I would simply ask that you provide some data to show that the presumption is no longer negated when children are raised by married same-sex couples. I doubt that there is data to show the presumption carries, but, I will state that I could be proven wrong.


Point conceded. However, I would suggest that you look more closely - consanguine unions, while not criminally punished, are an impediment to marriage. I would ask you and Buddha: why aren't you screaming about this, rather than homosexual marriage, or at least as loudly about this, if you are not just ask bigoted as you claim me to be.


Now, how is it that you claim the real policy here is not just a sham cover for bigotry? You certainly do as regards laws against homosexuals, even when a cogent reply is given. People who are pro-pedophile, and, assumably, the pedophiles themselves would simply reply that these "real polic[ies]" are bigotry against their natural sexual inclinations towards children, even if the timing of it is keyed to the onset of puberty, rather than a bright-line rule for 18-yos. I think you're just really picking and choosing as to what you believe here, rather than giving an argument as to why one is bigotry and the other is not.


Well, laws against homosexuals likewise have purposes. That doesn't seem to convince you of their non-bigotedness. For example, one could justify laws against homosexuals on the basis of:

1) prevent the denigration of public morality
2) to cease the spreading of disease

Again, I think what we have here is a picking-and-choosing approach. Why do some background policies/justifications convince you and others do not? I don't believe you've really stated. After all, couldn't a pro-incest individual state the following:

As to 1) the state doesn't prevent the coupling of other unions which will produce genetically compromised offspring. Why are we singled out?
As to 2) no proof that this occurs, and/or not applicable to the situation in which an individual incest practitioner finds themself.

Also, just for some additional reading: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

Back to the original topic; $10

It was not accurate.  You're revising history.  The statement you're quoting from yourself is your 2nd statement, after you'd already been called out.

And I didn't imply 100% of vasectomies were covered.  I said:
Besides, that's not the issue.  We're not talking about co-pays and such.


At this point, not trying to be obtuse, I don't even understand your point.  The info you quoted supports my stance, not yours.  Please, again -- what is your overall point you're trying to make?

I because:

1)  I recognize the difference.  And support gay marriage not incest.

2) I am not screaming about gay marriage, while I support it, it is very low on my priority list.  I have and will continue to vote for canidates who agree with me on other issues and oppose gay marriage.

Jesus christ, what the hell kind of dope are you people on ? What statement are you talking about ? Been called out about what ? What don't you understand ?



From memory, I don't think that I mentioned co-pays at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

OK, so you agree that vasectomies may or may not have been covered before Obamacare ?  YES of NO Would you also agree that female birth control may or may not have been covered before Obamacare ? YES or NO




My point ? I think that I did ask some questions.....

I don't know if vasectomies are covered under Obamacare or not.   I think they SHOULD BE. I am also willing to bet dollars to donuts if they aren't it was because the GOP blocked it.  Keep in mind on party was supporting expanding the care one party was trying to limit it as much as possible and a compromise was reached. 

So if it ain't covered and that bothers you, make sure point the blame at the right people -- the Republicans.   

I don't know if Obamacare makes any mention of vasectomies.

However, I'm saying that (before Obamacare) Vasectomies were largely covered by major insurance companies.

Would you, then, say that people who call to "present students with all the sides of the 'debate'" are unreasonable and irrational?

The ultimate point here is, it seems awfully convenient that your personal position is just far enough to the right to be perfectly reasonable (and therefore, people who attack your viewpoint from a position further left may not be being "open-minded people of education, good grooming, and above-average intelligence"), yet you seem to agree that people to your right are just being kooks.

If we want to play the "all political opinions are sacred expressions of personal freedom and how dare you call my position intolerant" game, that's fine.  However, it would be disingenuous for me to say that the people who disagree from my left are unreasonable, and the people who disagree from my right are irrational, but I'm in the sweet spot of reasonableness and rationality.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to "natural law" as it relates to biology.

If you're talking about some sort of innate system of morals bestowed upon us by our Creator, you are correct in stating that we have nothing to discuss.
If you're talking about a biologically inherited moral code, I would ask for a clarification: are you claiming that all human societies across all eras of history have a shared idea about what is right and wrong?  Because such a claim would be ludicrous on its face.

Is it "immoral" to eat when you are not hungry, or drink when you are not thirsty?  What part of "natural law" assigns morality to biological functions?

You object to Buddhagirl's implication that your position is based on religious grounds, but with the kinds of "sex for pleasure is immoral" claims you are making, you are a hairsbreadth away from justifying her implication.

Is it bigotry to say that homosexuality should be criminalized because it is "immoral"?  Or does that question depend on whether I say it is immoral according to [religion x] or according to some nebulous, unfalsifiable interpretation of what "natural law" is?

First off: I daresay "think of the children" is overwhelmingly the number one rationale from the right as to why SSM should be illegal (at least, in the public policy sphere, where less nuanced objections like "the Bible says it is forbidden!" are not very well-received).

And as for me personally, I am not at all motivated by whether the children of SSM couples have a better or worse life.  I only mention it because reality (SSM would benefit children of a homosexual relationship, compared to them remaining unmarried) runs directly counter to conservative claims that SSM would make things worse.

Then what possible value does this study have in determining whether or not SSM should be permitted?  That, not "Are homosexuals good parents?", is the question at hand.

Every one of these questions applies just as equally to straight relationships.  Does that fact complicate the claim that marriage improves the stability and durability of (straight) families?

I'm not sure what you're asking for, here.  The vast majority of objective benefits of being married (in particular, all legal relationships between parent and child, as well as between spouses) apply regardless of the sex of the parent, so that alone shows empirical benefit to the child.  You would need to show how these empirical legal benefits are somehow offset because of the homosexuality of the parents, but not due to factors that would continue to exist if said homosexual parents were simply cohabitating unmarried.  That would be a challenge, to say the least.

I gave two reasons for prohibition of incest; neither of them rests on a religious (or nebulous "natural law") argument for morality.

If the only rationale I could give against incest was that "it's morally wrong to have sex with your daughter," then I would agree that our positions are equal.

How is it that you find denying the desires of one person to victimize another and denying the desires of two consenting adults to be equivalent policies?  I suppose next, we can discuss how anti-rape policies are "bigoted" against the desires of rapists?

"Public morality" has been asked and answered; it's a thinly-veiled appeal to religious beliefs.

If you want to argue against homosexuality on the basis of disease control, have at it!  In contrast to vague appeals to morality, that's something that can be objectively measured.  Two challenges, though:

1) banning SSM (and not homosexuality itself) does nothing to stop the spreading of disease (in fact, it would seem to worsen the problem)
2) I look forward to arguments as to how lesbian sex is more prone to spread disease than, say, plain old heterosexual intercourse

1) Prohibition of incest is much more feasible than commissioning genetic profiles of all citizens (and yes, practicality of implementation does count for something); furthermore, according to your linked opinion piece, several states do prohibit marriages from those suffering from specific STDs
2) Plenty of laws exist under these conditions; e.g. it is illegal for me personally to own a biological weapon

Additionally, I would like to note that I find it puzzling that we are having this proxy argument about incest when you don't agree with incest, either.  Is the endgame of this line of discussion that I say, "This has opened my eyes... I have discovered my own latent bigotry"? Or is it that if you don't agree with incest, then you have no business telling someone else that they are wrong to advocate for re-segregating schools?

You seem to see bigotry as some sort of binary flag... like saying, "Sure, LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights Act, but he wouldn't let his daughters date a black man, so he was just as much of a bigot as George Wallace."  Bigotry has always been a sliding scale; people that I consider extremely intolerant today (e.g. Rush Limbaugh) would have been considered radical liberals 500 years ago.

If you want to make the argument that 200 years from now, my great-great-great grandchildren will look back and lament my inactivity in defending civil rights for incestuous couples, fine; I can live with that.  (I have already come to terms with the idea that my distant descendants will condemn me for being an evil meat-eater.)  But today, right now, you are advocating the denial of civil rights to homosexuals... at a time when such rights are socially acceptable to endorse.  So let's not lose sight of the context at hand.

Female contraceptives (before Obamacare) were covered by some insurance companies also. Do you dispute that ?

I do not dispute that.  I don't know the facts, though.  I wasn't being facetious when I said we need to know the actual facts.

It's really difficult to compare birth control to other forms of contraception, because it has a dual purpose.  I personally knew many girls (I want to really highlight the word many, because it wasn't just 1 or 2) that were on the pill for some other kind of medical problem, like bleeding or period regulation or severe cramping or something like that.

A bit off topic, but also getting back to the orginal topic, Spidy - are you crossing party lines?  Your auto sig image looks like something I would expect from someone who is anti-Obama who agreed with Eastwood's GOP convention speech not someone who is pro-Obama.

so explain the image...... ???

The empty chair speech was a train wreck and I thought that image was funny.

I've seen the latest Romney private fundraiser video ..

he actually stands up there, in front of 150 people .. and spells out how he'd plan terrorist attacks on the US if he was Iran.

"if i was Iran, this is what i'd do to terrorize and blackmail the united states" ..

is this man seriously running for president ? .. seriously ?


i may have a certain political view and i may agree or disagree with someone on specific policies and ideas .. those are fair  i think .. people dont think aliike .. but how anyone could ever vote for (at the kindest) something so incredibly stupid is beyond me.

That wasn't the exact context but it doesn't matter. Nothing Romney said wasn't true in general. His numbers may be skewed but the content is pretty much a fact. You aren't going to change most people before the election.

People have already made up their minds with a small exception. Politicians on both sides will panic a few more times but nothing much will change for most part. Whoever is going to win will win.

Here's a very similar "speech" given by a black pastor last week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_ZbMcair3w&feature=youtube_gdata_player

that pastor isn't running for the presidency and the exact context i heard it in was from his own mouth his own voice and words .. with what he said before and what he said after ..  i'm not commenting on some report, i don't even care about numbers or percentages or whatnot that he mentions elsewhere in the video  .. the fact of the matter is that someone who's campaigning to be commander in chief is publicly telling a group of people how he would strategically conduct terrorist attacks on the United States ..

what's the point of that exactly ? .. at best it's stupid .. stupid has no place in a leadership position

His words ...


Obviously he was explaining why in his opinion that ... " we don’t have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon."

If you really are offended then you have to consider his audience when trying to decipher what and how he says things. This is no different than anyone else in the entire world including you and I. These people paid at least $50,000 a piece to be there so chances are they were already "in" on his opinions. If it had been a Hollywood social I can assure it would have been more "Politically Correct" to make it friendlier to the receiving audience. I don't need to do that with my friends and neither do you and that's pretty much where he was.


The main thing that came out from the tapes is what has been the platform of the Republicans.

The current system creates people who are too dependent on government.  1) the government can't financially afford to do that and 2) It rewards laziness for millions. Republicans want to allow for new business and create jobs and retirement for those that want and can work. 

Republicans don't want to kill taking care of those in need but it does want to make it more difficult to be a freeloader. The freeloaders, whoever they are, will never vote for Romney even if Obama slept with their wife.

For instance ... they do not want to kill Social Security. They want people to get people to invest in themselves at a younger age so that they can take care of themselves when they are older. That doesn't mean they want to cut everything from everyone.

As always people hear what they want and like I said, have already chosen sides.

The standpoint of "I hate Obama, let's try someone else" is inherently flawed, when the "someone else" in question is undeniably worse.  I wonder how many of Romney's supporters actually like Romney, as opposed to just hating Obama.

No, I don't.

I do realize all canidates focus on different things with different groups.  You don't go to Iowa and talk about rebuilding the the auto industry and then head to Detriot and talk
about expanding farm subsidies. 

For example,  I won't vote for someone (of either party) who goes the the NEA and says "I will improve our schools, even if it means cutting Social security" and then goes to AARP and says, "I will fund Social Security even if it means cutting the education budget".  (Not saying either canidate has does this specific thing.)

I see not reason to put either Obama or Romney in context of the audiance.  I do feel it is important to put the words into the context of the rest of the speech.  Saying Romney "likes to fire people" is his view on job creation is taking the line out of context.  But nothing was taken out of context here. 

I agree with this, totally.  Attacking Romney for "I like to fire people" was stupid.

Probably about the same number of Kerry supporters who just hated Bush instead of liking Kerry.  This is hardly a new phenomina of American voting. 

For me, it took a guy named Barrack Obama. In fact, I changed my affiliation from Dem to GOP. I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me. 

What specifically about him?  His being black?  Cause politically he isn't very different than Clinton and he is considerably to the right of Carter. 

I'm not a "down the line" democrat, but I certainly don't understand how you could have been for the policies of the Dems 10 years ago, but then switched to the hard-right GOP because YOU haven't changed.  That just doesn't make a lick of sense.

If your views have changed, fine.  But there's no way that the GOP is closer to what the Dems used to be than the current Dems.  That's crazy talk.

I read a stat somewhere that something like 82% of people who dislike Obama feel that way because of his race.  I can't find it again, unfortunately.

I think somewhere in the underbelly of this election is a societal race issue being masked with policy and falsities.  Its kinda sad that we as a nation still have that kind of prejudice going on.

Or "you didn't build it" to attack Obama

I would think that is high but I can attest to meeting a number of people who feel this way. You can pretty much tell who they are even if they try to hide it or don't even realize it theirselves just based on their arguments.

^^ yes, you can.  When you hear them making up completely false statements (like Paul Ryan does every time he speaks), you know they are not educated on the issues, and just using as a mask for their hatred.

I was also surprised by how big that number is (more like how many people they convinced to admit it).

Yeah, exactly.

Standard fare for Obama and company. I hear it all the time, people who don't like Obama are racists. Personally, I don't like Obama. I have been called a racist. I've been told that I don't like him because he's black. On a few occasions I have informed them that Obama is half white. Of course they weren't having any of that talk. "He's all black as far as I'm concerned". Then you have the blacks that actually dislike Obama, and of course they are labeled "uncle toms" by the democrats. So if you say that 82% of people that dislike Obama do so because of his race. I can say that in Obama's 2008 presidential election, 45%-65% of everyone except blacks voted for Obama. 95% of blacks voted for Obama. You would think that the numbers would be somewhat inline with they other "minorities" votes. I guess the blacks felt that way because of his race and backed their boy up. See we can all play that game, the only difference is that my numbers are backed up by exit poll results and yours are not.


Everyone is prejudice in one way or the other whether you want to admit it or not. To pre judge something or someone is natures way of protecting yourself and is not under your direct control. Most people, if given a choice, will want to be around and interact with people they have the most in common, who they are most like, and who they are comfortable with. It's kinda sad that as a nation we have people that think that it's possible to create a color blind society.

I don't think Romney is "undeniably" worse. I would also bet many people do not think Romney is ?Undeniably worse. I think Romney is the best option of anyone who is available right now.

He believes in less government (this encompasses so much), building businesses (and has experience doing so), supporting Israel and in creating a strong military to deal with zealots who threaten our freedoms.  That's a ton of things right there that would garner my vote.

He believes in building business by outsourcing labor overseas to maximize profit.  How does that help unemployment?

Lol ... I don't think he is looking to outsource as president.

Look dude .... I used to sleep with pretty much everything that walked. As well, I fought like it effected if I ate or not but I'm certainly not raising my kids in that way because I know  the consequences of such actions. My priorities have changed, just as his would be as president. I think it's obvious he isn't in it to make money for himself.   

There are people who hate both Romney and Obama for racist issues. I don't think either party is excluded.  There are people who vote for both only for racist issues.

How do you change that?

And what exactly has Obama done for unemployment ? Obama is like the Tony Sparano of presidents. Shit just ain't never gonna work, he's in way over his head, time to move on. If the next one doesn't show real progress, boot his ass too. 

It is taken out of context if you think he is saying something that hasn't been said. It's the same line. It's just different language. I akin it to the Bible when reading the Apostle's letters. they wrote differently depending on who their target audience was, whether they were gentile or Jew for example, or even where they were in their faith but ultimately they said the same things.

Maybe this will help me to understand. What exactly was the new revelation that you didn't know prior to the secret video? What revelation will "turn" a Romney supporter against him? 

Missing the point.  Its not about what he will do AS president.  Its the mindset.  The Democratic ticket is rooted to create jobs by limiting outsourcing overseas.  The Republicans have supported tax cuts to companies who outsource since the Bush days.   

By the same token, he's not looking to build businesses (in the same way that he built businesses at Bain) as president, either.  So by that logic, his experience is simply inapplicable; you can't grow the American economy by leveraged buyouts and outsourcing.

In fact, the most direct analogy to his role in creating jobs as president would be his performance (from a job creation standpoint) as governor of Massachusetts.  You will note that he does not run on that record.

Ironically, I voted for Obama AND I LIVE IN McCAINS STATE OF AZ. During the 3rd debate McCain said he would reduce government spending evenly across the board. Obama followed up by saying he would cut spending like a laser and identify wasteful spending before cutting funding. Not only did he not cut spending, he has added 6 trillion (6,000,000,000,000.00) to the deficit....and growing.

Obama has lied about everything he ever promised and hides behind "executive privilege" when things get rough. Hell, he is suing my state because we want to cut down on illegal immigration and have34 control on paying for all their medical bills and paternity costs.

Black??? Black??? I think you have it backward. The most likely person to vote for Obama strictly on race, is.....you got it....black.   

Disagree on the Clinton comparison (I voted for him 2). Obama is clearly a Socialist and I believe he may even be a closet Muslim. No one really knows what religion he is, do they???

I was working a Kennedy Space Center preparing for the Shuttle closeout when Obama got elected in 2008. One of his 1st moves was to replace the Center Director and tell him to be more friendlier to the Muslims and get them more involved with the Space Program. WTF!!

Here is just one of many articles on the subject. Go ROMNEY!

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/07/white-house-nasa-defend-comments-about-nasa-outreach-to-muslim-world-criticized-by-conservatives/

Unless McCain was planning on rewriting the Constitution, he would have no more power to actually implement that promise than Obama did to implement health care reform with a public option (as he promised).  Somehow, that's one failed Obama promise that I don't think you're too unhappy about.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/politifact-tallies-obamas-campaign-promises/1249187

PolitiFact is tracking 508 promises made by Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign. Here's the tally so far:

Promise Kept: 190 (37 percent)

Compromise: 72 (14 percent)

Promise Broken: 83 (16 percent)

Stalled: 49 (10 percent)

In the Works: 112 (22 percent)

Not yet rated: 2 (0 percent)

Note: Percentages don't add up to 100 because of rounding

As for executive privilege, Obama has asserted it exactly one time.  In contrast, GWB invoked executive privilege 6 times (twice in his first term), and Clinton invoked executive privilege 14 times.

Romney made a speech to the NAACP, then immediately used that appearance as fuel for his base, telling them that he told the NAACP to "vote for the other guy if you want free stuff."  And you think the reason why African-Americans don't want to vote for him is... because he's white?  Perhaps that whole "open scorning and mocking" thing has a bit to do with it.

Do you think that if it were Hillary Clinton vs. Herman Cain, Cain would command a vast majority of the black vote?

You don't say.

I'm not trying to attack you,But I disagree with your reason......What he promised,was before the shit storm he walked into right after he got elected.He had no clue the World economic collapse was about to happen......IMO it's the same as holding Bush to what he promised prior to 9/11...The priority changed...


For me....It wasn't any revelation...It just provedwhat I thought,I heard him say it.......He doesn't give two shits about me... :D

Understand. I was never really interested in politics until about 3 yrs. ago. I basically just voted dem down the line most of my life based on the lie that Repubs were for the rich and Dems were for the poor. That is no longer true..IMO. This country needs a businessman in charge instead of a lifelong politician who is a professional campaigner.

Here is food for thought. Why do we have 50 women to choose from for crowning Ms. America, but realistically only 2 for President?

Because the 2 remaining candidates have already beaten many competitors to get to this point.

It's like you're saying that only two teams are allowed to play for the championship, while ignoring all the teams they had to beat to get there.

The system is flawed and broken. These can't be the best 2 people to run the country. If they are this has become a sad pathetic excuse for the great country that it used to be. I pity us all.....

I agree actually. Party extremists have too much say in the primaries. And you end up with one of two options. Either you get a extremist who won't appeal to the center (santorum) or you get an etch-a-sketch in Romney

Our system of government does not measure who is best suited to run the country.  It measures who can get the most people to vote for them.  Period, full stop.

As they say, democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the others.

Obviously that is true. I think one of the bye products is that it ultimately divides people. In the end it forces people to pick "one" side or the other as if one is good and one is evil. The fact is it's really just two different ways of looking at most things.


This is the biggest reality of the situation.

See ... this is what I mean about his comments not mattering. I don't think at all that is what he is saying but the chances of me changing your mind is probably pretty slim.
 
In my opinion he is speaking about those who  "want" to abuse the system and not someone who is struggling ...  which is a Republican concern. It's not that they don't care about poor people. they just have a different way of wanting to help them. 

Pity, you have a lot of good stuff to say and ruined your entire post with one line.

You say that as though being Muslim is bad.  Heaven forbid if he was also gay!  *gasp*

I guess that is why we have the single payer health system.

First let me say I believe Obama is a Christian but if he was a Muslim but was portraying himself a Christian ... then yes. That's bad. If he's a Muslim and portrays himself a Muslim then it wouldn't be an issue.  If he portrayed himself a gay Muslim it really wouldn't matter either as the Muslims would kill him!! Lol.

Only so much as nobody knows what anyone's religion is.

For the record, I STRONGLY believe that one's religion should have absolutely NO bearing on a person's competency as President of the United States.

Unless they wear magic underwear (Just an attempt at humor guys).

I would like to agree with that, but I don't.

Religion asks you to forgo reason for faith.  When someone is very religious (of any faith), it tells me that they are able to turn off evidence-based thinking and replace it with faith-based thinking.  I don't feel comfortable with political leaders with the ability to do that.  When faced with big issues, like war, I am shaking in my boots at the prospect of someone praying to find answers.

Now, living in America, it's pretty much unavoidable, so I find myself choosing candidates that I feel won't rely as heavily on their faith to help them make decisions.

I would agree with you, Dave.  However, what I meant was that we shouldn't be choosing our favorite candidate because he is Christian, Muslin, Jewish, Agnostic, etc.  Just because a guy is Muslim doesn't make him incapable of doing anything.

The statement given previously reminds me of the lady that stood up during a debate 4 years ago and asked John McCain if its true that Obama was an Arab.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrnRU3ocIH4

Kudos to McCain for how he handled his whacko followers.

Poor McCain.  I felt sorry for him, actually.

He's a guy that I really respected and he pretty much ruined his reputation by having to placate the far right.  He came off looking like an old coot.  It just wasn't his turn.  After Bush, no Republican was winning the White House, and he was the dude in there taking the drubbing.

When he sacked up and told that lady what was up -- Kudos to him, but it had already gone on way too long.

I would guess most people do actually care and for many different reasons. One such as what Dave alluded to. One way or the other "religion" is important to most people.

^^ Mostly because religion drives people's beliefs.  But is that to say that you would never vote for a Jewish candidate because he's Jewish?

"Jewish" is always a bad case to use for religious examples, because it is difficult to fully separate the religion of Judaism and the race of Jews.

Saying "I would never vote for a Jew" is not remotely the same thing as "I would never vote for a Buddhist."

^^^ I always considered it incorrect to refer to being Jewish as a race. How can someone be considered Jewish if they do not practice the religion? Christians are not a race. Muslims are not a race.

Jewish is not a race.  But it is an ethnic group.  A significant portion of the Jewish victims of the Holacaust were non-believers, about half of the Israeli Jews are non-believers.

 

Please give an example of another "ethnic group" that cannot be categorized as a race.

Italian. 

Fair enough; I suppose Jews are an ethnic subgroup of Caucasians.

Judaism is a bad analogy. Most Christians will support Jewish people as they have the same values. Remember ... to many Christians Christianity is only the fulfillment of Judaism. For that fact so do Muslims. They lump Christians and Jews together.  I fully supported and still would Joe Lieberman. Of course he ended up leaving the Democratic party as well.

Been away for a few weeks. Apologies. Busy time @ work and @ home.


I don't believe the point has any force. We are talking about a matter which is open to all of us: evolution's validity and reliability as a scientific theory. On that point, there simply can be no disagreement. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, to support any creationist theory. None. Creationists have printed, at my last count, zero peer reviewed articles on creationism that have ever made it into a journal. There is no conspiracy regarding this, either. I look @ this debate in the same way that I look at pre-big bang models of the beginning of the universe vs. current models. No one is going back to the steady-state model, ever. The only groups who kept clinging to it subsequent to its acceptance as a theory by the vast majority of physicists were the Russians. This is likely because, at that time, the Russians had a metaphysical issue w/  the Big Bang theory, much as the creationists do w/ evolution today. But that's just it, again, evolution is an open point upon which we can all coolly, calmly review the evidence and conclude, and the evidence is overwhelming here. Therefore, yes, there is a "sweet spot" of rationality, and yes, those individuals who would go outside of it are kooks. Given that, only one set of policies can rationally be adhered to, at least until new evidence warrants a review.

However, when we branch into non science-based politics, we go into a world where the evidence is, at best, squishy. Is [environmental regulation a], whose purpose is to save the whales, better than no regulation, which may make the gas mined from the whales' habitat cheaper? It is impossible to say. Even if there is evidence that the whales are an integral part of earth, and that their distinction would have devastating consequences, this is still conjecture, and always relies on what boils down to educated prognostication.

The same is true in areas like ethics. Should we have laws based on utilitarianism? Natural law? Maybe Kantian ethics? Difficult to say. I know where I stand, and I argue for it. But, I can respect those who differ from me. They may have arguments I don't know of, and which would be convincing to me. Same is true w/ the economy, etc. This is where, I feel, we should all grow in respect for one another. I'm not a bigot. Neither are you, or anyone else on this board (intentionally, anyway).

So, I don't really see that the issue that you bring up is as inconsistent as I believe you're trying to make it seem. As the old saying goes: "In necessary things, orthodoxy, in unnecessary, liberality."


No, I am not claiming that all human societies across all eras of history have a shared idea about what is right and wrong. I am not claiming that there is "universal moral uniformity." Rather, I am claiming that there is such a thing as objective morals, i.e. morals which are binding on us no matter whether or not we disagree w/ them, or live in a manner contradictory to them. I have not said whether they were "bestowed upon us by our Creator." That question is irrelevant to the debate entirely.

However, 1 point: if there are no objective morals, the kind you call an "innate system of morals" then, why do you argue that it matters that it is bigoted to oppose gay marriage? A bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Fair enough. But, unless there is an innate system of morals in all of us, which requires us NOT to be bigoted, then, who really cares?


I must say I'm very disappointed in this. You had previously made a natural law argument: that the infertile times in a woman's cycle justified non-generative sex. So, I am fairly aware that you know what we are dealing w/ here. However, if you want me to spell it out for you, I am not talking about a "natural law" in the sense of the law of thermodynamics or of gravity. Rather, I am talking about the theory of moral epistemology (and ontology) known as natural law. Now that that is out of the way, allow me to say your objection is off base.

Natural law theory believes there are rational principles we can grasp (w/o relation to divinity or otherwise) and deduce from everyday activity which determine whether an action is moral or not, just as we can grasp the other laws of nature, like gravity, from watching nature.

To start, the natural law theory would build an account of the good based on the ends which nature sets for the "actor" in his or her or its specific circumstances. What is the good of an activity/thing? It is the purpose of the activity/thing which is its good. In other words, a "good" table is one which holds up when objects are placed on it. A "good" car is one which takes you to and fro. Notice that, so far, the examples of "good" things have been inanimate. A good table does not/cannot choose to be good. Lets move up a level. A "good" wild animal is one which fulfills its purpose: to carry and successfully pass on its genes, to self-replicate. A "good" domesticated animal is one which pleases its owner. Thus, a "good" lioness is one which protects its young, and a "good" housecat is one which craps in its box, rather than on the floor. We haven't yet reached the level of moral goodness yet, as, neither the lion nor the housecat does what it does "rationally." A lioness may, intentionally, defend its cubs, but she does not do so rationally - knowing that that is what she is supposed to do and able to choose otherwise. Rather she acts on instinct. Neither does a housecat knowingly give pleasure to its owner. Rather, it just is doing what it does through Pavlovian conditioning. However, when we move up a level, we get into the space known as ethics - moral goodness. Men are both rational, able to grasp the good it is working towards, and choose otherwise, and intentionally. The table/car has neither, the lion/cat has only the intentionality.

A morally good man, therefore, chooses to act in accord w/ what is good - i.e. the purpose or end of the activity in which he is participating. Ok, so, how does that break down amongst a man's various activities: well, we have to act in accord, purposefully, with the ends as they're set for us. In the case of sex, by nature, and in the case of other activities, by our superiors.

So, let's look at this in the case of a man made example: school. The purpose of school is to educate the students. Therefore, when a student, while participating in school, chooses to do something which frustrates the purpose of becoming educated, they have done something morally wrong. So for example, part of school is being tested. If, while a student is being tested, they intentionally cheat, they've done something wrong: even if everyone, teachers included, consent to the cheating. The context may mitigate the degree of the wrongness of the act, but, it doesn't obviate the immoral nature of it entirely.

With the examples you've provided, it would be wrong for a man to, given that the purpose of food is nourishment, chew his food and then spit it out - only wanting the pleasure of the taste, without the nourishment. Or, in another context, it would be wrong for a man to eat solely for the purpose of human respect (to be seen at a party, eating) and then heading to the vomitorium and puking it up so that he can go back for more. The same is true of drink.

In the context of sex, as I said before, given that the purpose is generation, it would be wrong for a man to participate in a sexual act which he knew was categorically not generative.


Given the above, I would strongly disagree. Were I an atheist, I could still hold true to all of the above. I think any atheist could agree w/ the article I pasted at the end of my previous post. Remember - there are and have been socially conservative atheists on this matter. What about Julia Gilard? What about the communists of the 50s and 60s?

In addition: when did I ever argue that sex for pleasure is immoral. No, having sex because one desires the pleasure of it is just fine. However, to keep the sex your having, even when it is consented-to, moral, you need to keep it within the framework of generativity. If you fail to do so, you do wrongly.

This is precisely what is so sad about modern politics. Rather than actually read their opponents, people are happy to score political points. Buddha is a prime example and offender in this area. On the conservative side, Run-to-win was horrible about this.


That is precisely why this question should be left to the voters - rather than constitutional amendments. I agree with you - my understanding of natural law may be flawed. I've done as much research on it as my schedule and my intelligence allows for, and I do not believe I am wrong (haven't seen any winning arguments to the contrary) but, I admit, I could be wrong. (However - why nebulous[?] - you obviously understand it, but you disagree w/ it. No need to attach labels to denigrate your opponents position!) Perhaps natural law shouldn't been the impetus behind policy. But that said - let the voters have it out. I am sure some states will go one way, and some will go the other, but that should be the happy coincidence of our country's structure. No, opponents to gay marriage aren't bigots. Neither are its proponents radicalized libertines. As regards the equal protection clause, I just simply do not think this comes into play. It is obvious what that is for: racial equality. That, roughly, has been somewhat achieved.


Well, frankly, because it is hard to see how a "piece of paper" as many folks are wont to say, will increase stability. (Does marriage increase stability? Doubtful, anymore.) If children who are raised by gay parents have a more difficult time, then we'd need a study which says that creating a new, specific form of marriage specifically for homosexuals would increase stability (of course this is only helpful if, and only if, it is the instability of such relationships, and not something else which is causing the increased difficulty of the children of those relationships). However, that a) we don't know whether or not stability is the reason WHY children of SSRs have a more difficult time, and b) we don't know that marriage would increase stability, if it is the reason they have a more difficult time, the fact that children of gay parents alone have a more difficult time in their lives should give us pause.

In South Carolina, the definition of reasonable doubt is "facts which would give a reasonable man pause before acting." Given the paragraph above, I don't see how one wouldn't have reasonable doubt as to SSM as a result of this study.


Absolutely it does apply. Yes, it does complicate the claim that marriage improves the stability and durability of straight families. However, given that, all we are left with is that 1) marriage doesn't necessarily increase stability, 2) if it doesn't increase stability, and instability is the reason why children raised by gay couples do worse, then, 3) what impetus do we have (along the lines of the "think of the children" argument) for SSM anymore?

The point I am driving at is that families which do not fit an ontological form may actually be the issue here (you seem to recognize this in your next responsive paragraph). There is an old, anecdotal argument, thus far not really tested, which would indicate that children need more than just 2 "parents," but rather need a mother and father.

Admittedly there is no research on this, but, suffice it to say, I think the questions regarding SSM and children's welfare go far beyond just the stability of the families involved.


And I responded to them, and you haven't dealt w/ my responses yet at all. Given that other types of couplings produce inferior offspring, why do you single out the incestuous?


Because pedophilia is not always non-consensual. Think of Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualuaa. Rape, being always non-consensual is an obvious evil. There is no comparison. But, let's ask - if, let's say, if a 9 year old boy, who's hit puberty, consents to a relationship w/ a 54 year old woman (who truly does love the child), would you support it? All the elements you seem to want are there: lack of victimization, consent, and the child is already sexually mature. From your previous comments, you stated you had no issue with tailoring the law to a child's entrance into puberty. But, I think, this presents a problem for you: given this situation, which I think you would admit is possible, why do you not strenuously argue for the repeal (or reform) of pedophilia laws? It would seem that you would think that society's judgment, in this case, is just as wrong and out of touch as society's policies opposing same sex marriage or the criminalization of homosexual sodomy. If not, why not?


Your dismissal of public morality is a straw man.

Note that I said laws against homosexuals, rather than SSM. This an argument which would grant one not just the ability to stop SSM, but also to allow individual states to re-criminalize homosexual conduct.

As regards increased risk of STDs, there are a multitude of studies which indicate that there is a higher prevalence of STDs amongst those who practice homosexual sex. If you'd like a list, I can certainly provide you w/ one (it's good to have a scientist wife).

Alright, now you're dealing w/ my objections in a meaningful way. Your response to 1) doesn't do much - you should argue that all states should criminalize sexual contact between those w/ STDs or those who enter into sexual relationships that could result in inferior offspring. The reference to genetic testing is ridiculous - it is a red herring. Why not just change the law to restrict marriage to only the healthy? It would seem as though you should be arguing that. (In addition, what about homosexual incest - you couldn't prohibit that on this basis.) But, since you haven't and yet you still argue for the continued criminalization of incestuous relations, I would argue that you're a bigot on your own grounds. You have not articulated a reason beyond a vague dislike of incest that could really be a ground.

As regards 2) it is a complete red herring. Owning a biological weapon is an immediate threat to the safety of those around you. Incest is no such thing. Are you honestly arguing they're equivalent?


No, the argument is not to show latent bigotry, but to prove, on your own grounds, that if you do not oppose SSM or criminalization of gay sex, then you've really got no argument against the prohibitions on consanguine marriages or against the continued criminalization of incest.

Your argument, as I see it, is this:

As long as the individual participants are consenting adults, there should be no legal restriction on 1) their ability to get married, and 2) their ability to engage in sex.

If that is really the underlying basis of your argument, and I've understood it correctly, then, you've yet to really explain how you can prohibit incest. As I said: 1) doesn't ban incest, it merely shows you have a dislike of incest and are singling it out. 2) doesn't apply - it is just simply not always the case, and, given that, I think it is at best a stereotype, which is no good ground for a law.


Not my argument at all. Please see above - on your own grounds, I believe, you have lost the ability to reasonably argue against any prohibition against incest. The trouble is - you still DO argue for prohibitions on incest. Given this, both of the following are true: 1) you are in essence acting as a bigot on your own grounds (and just not recognizing it) or 2) based on similar grounds as the ones you argue against incest, I am well within my reason and right (as is everyone else) to oppose same-sex marriage, and, frankly, you should too.

Finally, your last point makes no sense whatsoever. What does it matter whether certain rights are socially acceptable to endorse? Are you saying that an individual who lived in the 1890s south was perfectly right if he a) believed that blacks and whites were absolutely equal yet, b) also still argued for their legal segregation? Obviously not. Whether or not a point is socially acceptable to endorse means utterly nothing as to whether or not it is a true, correct point, and whether the opposition is socially harmful.

Anyway - we've had our argument. If you want to response, please PM me. We can continue this matter there.