Honestly, now that Obama is the nominee........

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

On the human and civil rights front, he is a huge alternative If not - let's see the evidence supporting McCain. Please start with a non-religious reason why gays cannot get married and/or adopt. I submit there are none.

As for the economics - I think America is rightfully disgusted with the R's economic plan and rightfully so. You raise all these R talking points, but the bottom line is W has spent money like a silly housewife who cannot balance the checkbook and now someone has to pay the bill. Do you really trust the R party to do anything other than what it has done to us, which is screw us, for the last eight years

Also, the capital gains argument is a right wing BS talking point and you know it. But, if you really want to argue it accurately, raise the tax on stock market gains and lower or delete it from start up/venture capital gain tax.

First off, I don't trust the party to curb spending. I do trust McCain to do so, because he has a track record of stopping wasteful spending. It's not an either or question, it's a which is MORE horrible, but both alternatives are horrible.

Also, I DON'T know that the Capital Gains thing is BS. It's true, if you tax investment MORE, people will invest LESS. It is simple logic. I haven't raised ANYONE's talking points. Like I said, I have an advanced business degree and work in business. It's simple logic. I have to work with venture capitalists on a daily basis and raising capital gains will cost future jobs. Anyone saying otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. I mean, this is economics 101. Even a big lefty like Paul Krugman says this in his textbooks!

I don't agree with McCain that gays can't adopt. I would support a hierarchy system for adoption. Married couples at the top, gays second and singles last. Having a lot of "aunties", without a stable father figure, caused a lot of problems for me. I think most gay people are GREAT parents, but there is still gender identity lacking in the relationship. I think a mother and father is optimal and ideal, but not always possible.

As far as gay marriage goes, I agree that it should be up to the states. Why is this a federal issue?! Marriage shouldn't even be a legal issue. If you want someone to have your rights of survivorship, etc a simple contract will do. Both straights and gays would be doing this in my optimal world. Why should Obama consider this a federal issue? I don't agree with my party on the amendment. I don't believe the government has any business in what was originally a religious issue. I mean, if you go to a church that will marry 5 guys, a donkey and a porkchop, by all means they're married. I don't know why the federal government has anything to say about it.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

For the record, I am for the churces doing the charity work. I am also for the taxpayers not really paying that much for it. I think the churches should rely on private donations with some sort of large govt. well for, say, buildings etc. I mean all these so called religious people are all for cutting welfare until it comes to paying the Churches to do it. Then, govt. assistance is okay.

I basically agree with you. I would support radical welfare reform and a cessation of all funding of anything else. In my perfect world, you would be required to apply for at least 10 jobs a day, or seek a four year degree to qualify to be on welfare. The degree would have to be in a field that pays on average more than $40,000 per year upon graduation. The business, legal and medical fields all have degrees that do this. You would be required to go to a REAL school and not some crappy DeVry or University of Phoenix program that no one accepts. You would be on birth control, be subject to drug and alcohol tests, maintain a C average and lose the ability to vote while on welfare. Harsh?! Yes. Effective? Yes.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Blah Blah Blah - please comment on the accuracy of his message. Do you really think we should stay in Iraq forever? Maybe your one of the ones who actually believed W and his cronies when they flat out said Iraq's oil would pay for the war and the recovery. What utter cr*pola.

That you support the R's in any capacity is amazing. I get that Obama is no walk in the park, but can't you see what the R party has done to us and will continue to do to us if McCain is elected. It is sort of like you are Fox News, you acknowledge out of hand that W has done bad things, but you never really address what exactly McCain is going to actually do that is any different. Moreover, even if you can't vote for Obama, why are you going to vote for McCain (assuming you are)?

Your email is full of such gross generalizations and hyperbole that I have to laugh. So here goes.....

Anyway. I think McCain would focus more on accomplishing the Iraq mission more than trying to keep critics happy, IE the way Bush handled it. I think McCain would veto more wasteful spending, he has a track record of doing so. He'd be more likely to get bipartisan support, as he has a history of actually working across the isle to make compromises. IE the gang of 14, where he negotiated the confirmation of judges, whereas Bush was happy with the stalemate. McCain would opt to build more nuclear reactors and focus more on drilling, whereas Bush has only done so now to leave a legacy. McCain would close Guantanamo and stop torture. McCain would surround himself with people knowledgable in the fields that they specialize in, instead of hiring leftovers from the Nixon Ford administration. He would focus more on finding Bin Laden. He has also said he would use the bully pulpit of the presidency to expose the biggest wasters. Whether you like McCain or not, he has generally done what he has said he would do, even if it was unpopular with his base, IE immigration reform.

Also, I never said anything about Iraq or oil prior to you bringing it up. You just painted me with a broad brush, which displays how ignorant you are. I am sick of the ad homonym attacks of the left. I think we attacked the wrong country and we should have done the job the first time back in 1991. Another thing McCain would have done differently.

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;763315]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Believe me, I am for the word marriage being in no law book at all. If you want to get married, get whatever church you belong to to marry you. Then enter into contracts and wills for the disposition of propery. And, if we have the fair tax, that proposition is even more available.

The problem is, the R's do not want sep. of church and state. So, the gays are forced to work within that. It's a vicious cycle. But, your argument is specious because prohibition of types of marriages and benefits given to married people is far older than 150 years Also, the R party wants to put gay people in jail for having sex, not to mention unmarried people and, also, married people if they perform fellatio (sodomy) on each other. That is just fukced up

I would invite you to find a single republican in office that has said that they want to lock up gay people or unmarried people, or anyone having oral sex. That is a plain lie. No one has said anything like that in 50 years, unless you're fringy. Besides, I mean, remember Larry Craig? He's a closeted gay man and no republican is trying to kill him or arrest him for sodomy. The people who went after him the most were democrats! This is just plain absurd!

Marriage licenses have not been around for more than 150 years, that is also incorrect. The benefits given to married people have also not been around since then because we've only had a national tax system since around World War I. Health Insurance hasn't been around that long either. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's wrong.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I would invite you to find a single republican in office that has said that they want to lock up gay people or unmarried people, or anyone having oral sex. That is a plain lie. No one has said anything like that in 50 years, unless you're fringy. Besides, I mean, remember Larry Craig? He's a closeted gay man and no republican is trying to kill him or arrest him for sodomy. The people who went after him the most were democrats! This is just plain absurd!

As I posted earlier, the Republican administration in charge of Texas prosecuted the case of Lawrence v. Texas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ) - which asked the USSC to up hold the state law in Texas that made it a crime for gay people to have sex, though married and unmarried heterosexual people apparently could fellate and sodomize all they wanted (this remains unclear though). The Lawrence case overturned the Bowers case, which though immediately applicable to the prosecution (yes, they were prosecuted as two other guys were in Lawrence) of two gay guys for having sex, the GA statute applied to all sodomy (defined as all anal and oral sex regardles of sexuality or marital status).

So, there's more than one. In fact, there's a few. Capice?

I am not making this up though you may not want to believe it

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Marriage licenses have not been around for more than 150 years, that is also incorrect. The benefits given to married people have also not been around since then because we've only had a national tax system since around World War I. Health Insurance hasn't been around that long either. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's wrong.

The actual issuance of the license is hardly the point considering legal prohibitions to certain marriages have been around far longer regardless of whether a state issued license was issued. As early as 1665, the Maryland colonial assembly made interracial marriage a crime. In addition, there are more benefits then the tax system. Try property rights and inheritance rights for starters. In any event and no matter how long rights are being given based solely on religion, the issuance of rights based on religion is wrong and unconstitutional.

But and again, I agree with you because I think you said you would be for the word "marriage" to appear in no law book. If two consting adults want to marry, they should find a church to marry them and then contract for their property rights. To me, that is the fairest way. Sadly, the R party finds that idea incomprehensible and abhorrent. So we have to work with what we have, which is pathetic if you ask me. Interestingly, many far right religious leaders find the idea of the state's requirement for a license abhorrent.

For the record, do you think the state should have any business telling any teo consenting adults anything about marrying? Or, do you believe the state has the right to prohibit consenting adults from marrying based solely on religion?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . I don't know why the federal government has anything to say about it.

Well, call the RNC and ask them because they are making it a huge issue They do this to play on peoples' prejudice. That is sick. Yet, you are for these very people. How can you do that?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I basically agree with you. I would support radical welfare reform and a cessation of all funding of anything else. In my perfect world, you would be required to apply for at least 10 jobs a day, or seek a four year degree to qualify to be on welfare. The degree would have to be in a field that pays on average more than $40,000 per year upon graduation. The business, legal and medical fields all have degrees that do this. You would be required to go to a REAL school and not some crappy DeVry or University of Phoenix program that no one accepts. You would be on birth control, be subject to drug and alcohol tests, maintain a C average and lose the ability to vote while on welfare. Harsh?! Yes. Effective? Yes.

I would be for putting the subdermal or some other relatively long lasting birth control in any pubescent girl on demand, without parental consent, and on the govt.'s dime.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Also, I never said anything about Iraq or oil prior to you bringing it up. You just painted me with a broad brush, which displays how ignorant you are. I am sick of the ad homonym attacks of the left. I think we attacked the wrong country and we should have done the job the first time back in 1991. Another thing McCain would have done differently.

Um - did I refer to you in that post? I said "Maybe" you were one of the ones, which implied asking for clarification

As for McCain, I believe you are incorrect. McCain voted to authorize W to use force in Iraq? Then, when campaigning for W to get reelected, the "greatest critic" who claimed the war would "fail" stated praised W's leadership and stated:

“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]

“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]

“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]

“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.” [CBS, 10/31/04]

“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]
___________________________________________________________

McCain can't have it both ways

On edit - perhaps you were stating McCain would have marched on to Bagdad in the first Gulf War. If so, so would I. But, that hardly negates his cheerleading for W's invasion of Iraq in 2003, though he double talked being against it soon thereafter and then was for it as evidenced in the above quotes.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You raise all these R talking points, but the bottom line is W has spent money like a silly housewife who cannot balance the checkbook and now someone has to pay the bill.

Sexist!















(I kid.)

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Whether you like McCain or not, he has generally done what he has said he would do, even if it was unpopular with his base, IE immigration reform . . . .

I think and have repeatedly said I think McCain is a decent guy. I just think his lack of caring about gay people and really all other non R supported human and civil rights is abhorrent and wrong. I just do not understand how people can support that in any way, esp. considering the R party has all but bankrupted this country. But, they do.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Sexist!

. . .

(I kid.)

I know - but I LOVE that visual

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . As far as gay marriage goes, I agree that it should be up to the states. Why is this a federal issue?! . . . .

It has to be a Federal issue because when you get married in one state, the US Const.'s 10th Amendment dicates a sister state must give "full faith and credit" to the issuing state's marriage laws. The DOMA attempted to corcumvent this, but most certainly will be struck down by The Supremes as Unconstitutional, and rightly so. Commerce would halt if states were allowed to pick and choose which interstate laws they upheld.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Also, I DON'T know that the Capital Gains thing is BS. It's true, if you tax investment MORE, people will invest LESS. It is simple logic. I haven't raised ANYONE's talking points. Like I said, I have an advanced business degree and work in business. It's simple logic. I have to work with venture capitalists on a daily basis and raising capital gains will cost future jobs. Anyone saying otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. I mean, this is economics 101. Even a big lefty like Paul Krugman says this in his textbooks! . . . .

1. I am for getting rid of the capital gains tax.

2. The captial gains tax to my knowledge applies not only to venture capitalists and the like. It also applies to a stock market portfolio of long established companies. It is with the latter I think a cap. gains tax (at least the raise Obama promotes) will not hurt the economy. I mean how is the former Chairman of the ex Bear Stearns being taxed 20% on $400 million going to significantly effect the economy? It is not. That $80 million (which again I do not think he should be taxed on at all) will sit in some fund. In all probability, he is not going to spend that money or invest it in a start up. But, I agree with you about the former.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

As I posted earlier, the Republican administration in charge of Texas prosecuted the case of Lawrence v. Texas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ) - which asked the USSC to up hold the state law in Texas that made it a crime for gay people to have sex, though married and unmarried heterosexual people apparently could fellate and sodomize all they wanted (this remains unclear though). The Lawrence case overturned the Bowers case, which though immediately applicable to the prosecution (yes, they were prosecuted as two other guys were in Lawrence) of two gay guys for having sex, the GA statute applied to all sodomy (defined as all anal and oral sex regardles of sexuality or marital status).

So, there's more than one. In fact, there's a few. Capice?

I am not making this up though you may not want to believe it



The actual issuance of the license is hardly the point considering legal prohibitions to certain marriages have been around far longer regardless of whether a state issued license was issued. As early as 1665, the Maryland colonial assembly made interracial marriage a crime. In addition, there are more benefits then the tax system. Try property rights and inheritance rights for starters. In any event and no matter how long rights are being given based solely on religion, the issuance of rights based on religion is wrong and unconstitutional.

But and again, I agree with you because I think you said you would be for the word "marriage" to appear in no law book. If two consting adults want to marry, they should find a church to marry them and then contract for their property rights. To me, that is the fairest way. Sadly, the R party finds that idea incomprehensible and abhorrent. So we have to work with what we have, which is pathetic if you ask me. Interestingly, many far right religious leaders find the idea of the state's requirement for a license abhorrent.

For the record, do you think the state should have any business telling any teo consenting adults anything about marrying? Or, do you believe the state has the right to prohibit consenting adults from marrying based solely on religion?

The Lawrence V. Texas case is QUITE a stretch. The original law was British common law, unless you want to blame Republicans for the laws of the British. Also, any administration's justice department, whether Republican or Democrat is REQUIRED to defend the existing law whether they want to or not. It would not be the prosecution in a Supreme Court case anyway, it would be Petitioner V. Respondant, except in the originating criminal complaint. There would be no "prosecution" but a representative from the local justice department obligated to argue on the side of existing law. Otherwise, you'd have prosecutors that refuse to prosecute individuals with whom they agree or find pity. What the Lawrence case shows is not bigotry, but that our democracy works. Even Thomas in his dissent stated that the law was "uncommonly silly", but his problem had more to do with their advocating of rights that are not specifically stated in the constitution and that the majority opinion was formed with application of law that would be inconsistent with other rulings. This is frankly how bad laws get overturned. What you are advocating, it sounds like to me, is that our law & order system should decide on a case by case asis whether or not to apply stare decisis, instead of applying the existing laws equally and letting the parties fight it out up the food chain. Frankly, the law worked in Lawrence the way it was supposed to, a bad law got overturned. I don't see in this case here that any "republican" was discriminating against gay people. The republican objection was based on a strict constructionist interpretation that there were other reasons to strike down the law besides the law applied and that they believed that states had the right to govern their own morality.

Also, as far as property rights and inheritance rights go, you can own anything as "tenants in common" or any other form of title you choose where the other party gets the property upon your death. Also, writing a good will would take care of most of the issues you mention. Inheritance is another thing the government should stay the hell out of too. What right does the government have to say who I can give my stuff to when I die? If I want to create my own dynasty, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Maryland's law concerning interacial marriage also has nothing to do with Republicans. You forget that it was a republican congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the help of a Democratic President. While the Republicans in Congress were working on this act, Bobby Kennedy was busy wiretapping Martin Luther King because he thought he was a threat to national security!

To answer your last question, I don't think the government should have any say in marriage, except for age of consent laws, but that's a criminal matter anyway.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

As I posted earlier, the Republican administration in charge of Texas prosecuted the case of Lawrence v. Texas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ) - which asked the USSC to up hold the state law in Texas that made it a crime for gay people to have sex, though married and unmarried heterosexual people apparently could fellate and sodomize all they wanted (this remains unclear though). The Lawrence case overturned the Bowers case, which though immediately applicable to the prosecution (yes, they were prosecuted as two other guys were in Lawrence) of two gay guys for having sex, the GA statute applied to all sodomy (defined as all anal and oral sex regardles of sexuality or marital status).

So, there's more than one. In fact, there's a few. Capice?

I am not making this up though you may not want to believe it

The Lawrence V. Texas case is QUITE a stretch. The original law was British common law, unless you want to blame Republicans for the laws of the British. Also, any administration's justice department, whether Republican or Democrat is REQUIRED to defend the existing law whether they want to or not. It would not be the prosecution in a Supreme Court case anyway, it would be Petitioner V. Respondant, except in the originating criminal complaint. There would be no "prosecution" but a representative from the local justice department obligated to argue on the side of existing law. Otherwise, you'd have prosecutors that refuse to prosecute individuals with whom they agree or find pity. What the Lawrence case shows is not bigotry, but that our democracy works. Even Thomas in his dissent stated that the law was "uncommonly silly", but his problem had more to do with their advocating of rights that are not specifically stated in the constitution and that the majority opinion was formed with application of law that would be inconsistent with other rulings. This is frankly how bad laws get overturned. What you are advocating, it sounds like to me, is that our law & order system should decide on a case by case asis whether or not to apply stare decisis, instead of applying the existing laws equally and letting the parties fight it out up the food chain. Frankly, the law worked in Lawrence the way it was supposed to, a bad law got overturned. I don't see in this case here that any "republican" was discriminating against gay people. The republican objection was based on a strict constructionist interpretation that there were other reasons to strike down the law besides the law applied and that they believed that states had the right to govern their own morality.

Also, as far as property rights and inheritance rights go, you can own anything as "tenants in common" or any other form of title you choose where the other party gets the property upon your death. Also, writing a good will would take care of most of the issues you mention. Inheritance is another thing the government should stay the hell out of too. What right does the government have to say who I can give my stuff to when I die? If I want to create my own dynasty, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Maryland's law concerning interacial marriage also has nothing to do with Republicans. You forget that it was a republican congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the help of a Democratic President. While the Republicans in Congress were working on this act, Bobby Kennedy was busy wiretapping Martin Luther King because he thought he was a threat to national security!

To answer your last question, I don't think the government should have any say in marriage, except for age of consent laws, but that's a criminal matter anyway.

The actual issuance of the license is hardly the point considering legal prohibitions to certain marriages have been around far longer regardless of whether a state issued license was issued. As early as 1665, the Maryland colonial assembly made interracial marriage a crime. In addition, there are more benefits then the tax system. Try property rights and inheritance rights for starters. In any event and no matter how long rights are being given based solely on religion, the issuance of rights based on religion is wrong and unconstitutional.

But and again, I agree with you because I think you said you would be for the word "marriage" to appear in no law book. If two consting adults want to marry, they should find a church to marry them and then contract for their property rights. To me, that is the fairest way. Sadly, the R party finds that idea incomprehensible and abhorrent. So we have to work with what we have, which is pathetic if you ask me. Interestingly, many far right religious leaders find the idea of the state's requirement for a license abhorrent.

For the record, do you think the state should have any business telling any teo consenting adults anything about marrying? Or, do you believe the state has the right to prohibit consenting adults from marrying based solely on religion?

The Lawrence V. Texas case is QUITE a stretch. The original law was British common law, unless you want to blame Republicans for the laws of the British. Also, any administration's justice department, whether Republican or Democrat is REQUIRED to defend the existing law whether they want to or not. It would not be the prosecution in a Supreme Court case anyway, it would be Petitioner V. Respondant, except in the originating criminal complaint. There would be no "prosecution" but a representative from the local justice department obligated to argue on the side of existing law. Otherwise, you'd have prosecutors that refuse to prosecute individuals with whom they agree or find pity. What the Lawrence case shows is not bigotry, but that our democracy works. Even Thomas in his dissent stated that the law was "uncommonly silly", but his problem had more to do with their advocating of rights that are not specifically stated in the constitution and that the majority opinion was formed with application of law that would be inconsistent with other rulings. This is frankly how bad laws get overturned. What you are advocating, it sounds like to me, is that our law & order system should decide on a case by case asis whether or not to apply stare decisis, instead of applying the existing laws equally and letting the parties fight it out up the food chain. Frankly, the law worked in Lawrence the way it was supposed to, a bad law got overturned. I don't see in this case here that any "republican" was discriminating against gay people. The republican objection was based on a strict constructionist interpretation that there were other reasons to strike down the law besides the law applied and that they believed that states had the right to govern their own morality.

Also, as far as property rights and inheritance rights go, you can own anything as "tenants in common" or any other form of title you choose where the other party gets the property upon your death. Also, writing a good will would take care of most of the issues you mention. Inheritance is another thing the government should stay the hell out of too. What right does the government have to say who I can give my stuff to when I die? If I want to create my own dynasty, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Maryland's law concerning interacial marriage also has nothing to do with Republicans. You forget that it was a republican congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the help of a Democratic President. While the Republicans in Congress were working on this act, Bobby Kennedy was busy wiretapping Martin Luther King because he thought he was a threat to national security!

To answer your last question, I don't think the government should have any say in marriage, except for age of consent laws, but that's a criminal matter anyway.