US Elections 2008

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

not to mention familar names like Holbrook, Rubin and Richardson. It seems almost like we voted for Clinton again.

I'm definitely feeling déjà vu looking at all the possibilities. I am expecting one or two republicans/conservatives to appear in the Cabinet, and quite a few more to appear in the various Administration positions.

That being said, as an aside, if anyone here wants to apply to work for the new administration, go here. I say this not as an Obama supporter, or as an advertisement, but as someone interested in the selection process involved with Administration employment.

---

In other news, it seems that Gun Sales are on the rise. Hopefully it is mostly due to people thinking that Obama will start legislation to make it harder to buy guns, and not because they wish to attack Obama supporters, or something equally crazy and evil.

[OutPhase]

Originally Posted by mg1942

To those with heavy science background, pls prove me wrong. I hope to be proved wrong about the general belief that homosexuality is just a choice/preference. Is there a serious study that proves there really is a"gay" gene? And is it social-driven?

There is no proof that homosexuality is or isn't genetic. There have been many crazy theories like the size of a finger or a part of the brain can be a factor, but it's too implausible to believe. There is not proven link to what determines ones sexual orientation. All ideas and theories have been encountered with a large amount of skepticism and questioning it's legitimacy.

One of the most plausible arguments about how one becomes gay for me is the classic "nature vs. nurture" approach, and even that is highly questionable.

If yes, I (can) accept.......... that homosexuality is not preference, it's a minor disorder, and they’re welcome to get government benefits/handouts/vouchers.......... for the purpose of controlling the urges and curing it by taking medications.

Medications? What the hell are you talking about? It's a sexual orientation, not a condition (ADHD) or an illness (diabetes). Making a medicine for homosexuality would be like making one to "treat" heterosexuality.

Originally Posted by mg1942

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5044196.story

Ms. Jasmyne A. Cannick, a "NO on 8" supporter gives her point-of-view of what happened while she was canvassing the streets of Los Angeles.

^{PS I used to live in Los Angeles 90028 until I moved to vegas in '05.}

I can sup up her logic perfectly:

"This wasn't about US, so many didn't vote in opposition since it wasn't about OUR best interests, but rather the interests of another, and they used outdated civil rights models, since the approach towards civil rights, as it turns out, ISN'T timeless.

By the way, many of them are Christian and still don't know the moral teachings of their own religion, otherwise they would know that the New testament doesn't condemn homosexuality, but hey, why kill the fun? LOL HATE-MONGERING. Also, I'm tired of addressing the issue, so I'm going to BAAAAW over low test scores, dropout rates, unemployment, and other crap that is completely unrelated to Prop. 8."

It also doesn't help that she harps on about "gay WHITES", making me think that she is racist as well. Her arguments are piss poor since she goes on to bitch and moan about completely irrelevant issues. It would be like me wanting people to respect the dead, and then talk about people who throw their trash on the side of the road.

The letter only confirms my belief that the more idiotic your letter sounds, the more likely it is going to be published for all of the public to see.

[takuu]

After skimming this thread i'm surprised no one has brought up the fact that "marriage" has religious connotations. Honestly, I don't give a crap whether or not Adam and Eve are bound by a ring and "Gods" blessings or if Adam and Steve are bound by a ring and "Gods" blessings. However I can see how overly religious people are, actually I can see how any religious person is.

If state and religion are supposed to be separate I do not understand why our government uses the word "marriage" to define the union between two people AND give them benefits for doing so. I think the terminology should be altered to something more secular and fitting for today's society. That way it is no longer tied to religion. Just my 2cents.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by takuu

After skimming this thread i'm surprised no one has brought up the fact that "marriage" has religious connotations. Honestly, I don't give a crap whether or not Adam and Eve are bound by a ring and "Gods" blessings or if Adam and Steve are bound by a ring and "Gods" blessings. However I can see how overly religious people are, actually I can see how any religious person is.

If state and religion are supposed to be separate I do not understand why our government uses the word "marriage" to define the union between two people AND give them benefits for doing so. I think the terminology should be altered to something more secular and fitting for today's society. That way it is no longer tied to religion. Just my 2cents.

I recommend you to read this link. Though I realize that an atheist site may seem biased, I find the opinions in the article well formulated and rationalized.

Here are some excerpts:

Although the details of marital practice varied widely among Revolutionary-era Americans, there was a broadly shared understanding of the essentials of the institution. The most important was the unity of husband and wife. The "sublime and refined ... principle of union" joining the two was the "most important consequence of marriage," according to James Wilson, a preeminent statesman and legal philosopher.

The consent of both was also essential. "The agreement of both parties, the essence of every rational contract, is indispensably required," Wilson said in lectures delivered in 1792. He saw mutual consent as the hallmark of marriage — more basic than cohabitation.

Everyone spoke of the marriage contract. Yet as a contract it was unique, for the parties did not set their own terms. The man and woman consented to marry, but public authorities set the terms of the marriage, so that it brought predictable rewards and duties. Once the union was formed, its obligations were fixed in common law. Husband and wife each assumed a new legal status as well as a new status in their community. That means neither could break the terms set without offending the larger community, the law, and the state, as much as offending the partner.

And...

To understand how to preserve the health of marriage as a social institution, and also to understand why there is no substitute for same-sex marriage, it is necessary to understand where marriage gets its special power: how it works. And this depends crucially on understanding that marriage is not merely a contract between two people. It is a contract between two people and their community.



When two people approach the alter or the bench to marry, they approach not only the presiding official but all of society. They enter into a compact not just with each other but with the world, and that compact says: "We, the two of us, pledge to make a home together, care for one another, and, perhaps, raise children together. In exchange for the caregiving commitment we are making, you, our community, will recognize us not only as individuals but as a bonded pair, a family, granting us a special autonomy and a special status which only marriage conveys. We, the couple, will support one another. You, society, will support us. You expect us to be there for each other and will help us meet those expectations. We will do our best, until death do us part."

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Razer_2mb

"This wasn't about US, so many didn't vote in opposition since it wasn't about OUR best interests, but rather the interests of another, and they used outdated civil rights models, since the approach towards civil rights, as it turns out, ISN'T timeless.

By the way, many of them are Christian and still don't know the moral teachings of their own religion, otherwise they would know that the New testament doesn't condemn homosexuality, but hey, why kill the fun? LOL HATE-MONGERING. Also, I'm tired of addressing the issue, so I'm going to BAAAAW over low test scores, dropout rates, unemployment, and other crap that is completely unrelated to Prop. 8."

It also doesn't help that she harps on about "gay WHITES", making me think that she is racist as well. Her arguments are piss poor since she goes on to bitch and moan about completely irrelevant issues. It would be like me wanting people to respect the dead, and then talk about people who throw their trash on the side of the road.

Keep in mind people like Ms. Jasmyne A. Cannick were busy trying to get Obama elected by getting them to register to vote. She didn’t have time to convince and sell prop 8 properly.

Now you’re putting down black and hispanic people? Maybe the proponents of “NO on 8” (majority of them white-backed/supported) should have worked harder by going door-to-door in the (mean) streets of South LA, Compton, and East LA (To them LA only consist of San Fernando Valley, Studio City, and Hollywood) to try to win black/hispanic votes instead of throwing donation money to spoiled A+ Hollywood actors and use them as puppets. Using Hollywood elites didn’t work, and the groups I mentioned above didn’t buy it and do not relate to them. I can see why NO on 8 lost 47.6% to YES 52.4%. NO Prop 8 proponents should be grateful that it's not as lopsided as Prop 22 in year 2000, they should see the current as progress (who knows… maybe 10-20 years from now gay rights will get their way).

The letter only confirms my belief that the more idiotic your letter sounds, the more likely it is going to be published for all of the public to see.

My bad if her PC-less and straight-forward approach offended you.

[Luminisk]

Hmmm... this thread has gone south a bit.

[solomon]

This wont be the last word but here is how I think

I think FOR PRACTICALITY. Homosexuals should push hard for civil unions throughout all states, the word marriage holds baggage. But as long as you have same legal rights I think they should just be happy with that until social attitudes change (possibly generational). My aunt who is black and a conservative says that she doesn't care about civil unions but that "marriage" should only refer to men/women due to time honored tradition. I say "ok, that's good compromise" anything else, I am sorry I see as just bigotry, it doesn't hurt heteros if they recognize same sex civil unions frankly cause it's a PRIVATE MATTER.

I sympathise with homosexual couples for civil unions but I always knew that the Black community would not empathyise their racial progressivism with homosexual rights progressivism, over all we are VERY christian, I being an exception. (we can be just as, even MORE conservative on that than whitey).


Still on something more on topic.

Obama if he wants to get through his first 4 years will have to play a clinton esque game. My proggressive side is a tad dissapointed but my moderate side is happy due to the fact that we may get things done on energy and infrastructure. I don't think Obama will do anything stupid on the foriegn policy front now that he is in office, nor do I see any real progress either. Barring any HUGE happenings, we will have to abide by the SOFA agreement in Iraq. I don't expect any big changes on the Isreal front (nor do I care, sorry to people on both sides, but it doesn't seem to me that the hardliners on all sides will EVER comprimise like they did in England vs. Ireland).

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Luminisk

Hmmm... this thread has gone south a bit.

Yes I agree, we should stop harping on Prop 8 and prolly focus more on say the Obama admin a bit more? Otherwise we will have to make a new thread specifically titled "Gay Marriage, Yea or Nay?" or something of the sort.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Whatever happened to Ron Paul revolution? Ron Paul is the biggest online hype generator since Haruhi Suzumiya and Soulja Boy! It could have been a 3-way race if he ran libetarian or independent.

Ron Paul was interesting from a political point of view. One of the last few OLD SCHOOL CONSERVATIVES who argue against america being World Police while still being a traditionalist and "pro-buisness" on domestic matters. Because he isn't an interventionalist or even an internationalist, he never would have been vetted.

Also the swing state thing is interesting. Turnout was prolly high in my state of VA, but maybe not record breaking. ONe because the Afro-American vote while higher than previous elections wasn't ALL THAT HIGH. Two because I do think you had a couple of conservatives who wanted to sit it out.

Voting Commentary, I guess NC is a bit more dixie than VA based off of voting results. I live in densley populated Northern VA core. For all intents and purposes, the core of the DC metro area is Mid-Atlantic, not southern in culture.

NoVa really came out for Obama, cause we (At least the more diverse urban part) are more moderate than the rest of the state, purple but getting more blue as you get closer to DC.

From most conservative to liberal for NoVa core

Loundon-----Prince William-------Fairfax-------------Arlington.

The first two are quite affluent and diverse but still somewhat more say Orange County-ish? Though maybe not as much as OC itself

I didn't count the other Upper VA counties cause they don't factor into the the very gradual voting/demo changes, ie if they aren't in those VA counties then they still are GOP strongholds and will be for forseeable future.

Iowa always struck me as odd. It's much poorer/rural than it's neighbors Illinois and Minnesota yet it leans democratic. Compare that to Nebraska or Kansas. I think it's cause of the college cities?

[OutPhase]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Now you’re putting down black and hispanic people?

I never said anything about the general populous, but rather how the person who wrote the letter made it out to be. It's a horribly written letter and it's obvious that she didn't take the time to improve on anything about it other than spelling and grammar. If I were an English teacher, I would give it a D+ since at least she didn't vomit on the language. Where on earth do lines such as these have to do with fighting for or against Prop. 8?

Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?

...


That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration?

Really, I've written better rough drafts for essays than this, and since it was sent out, it's the "completed" version. An hour or two of editing could have made this letter fantastic with a great flow of dialogue, but in the end it comes off as mediocre and pretentious, and makes the writer sound exceptionally whiny. Yes, we know that black people still face many hardships due to race, but I ask you, what on earth does that have to do with anything?

Maybe the proponents of “NO on 8” (majority of them white-backed/supported) should have worked harder by going door-to-door in the (mean) streets of South LA, Compton, and East LA (To them LA only consist of San Fernando Valley, Studio City, and Hollywood)

Same-sex marriage is a very touchy issue, and most people have their opinion on the matter set in stone. It also doesn't help that most of the minority votes used religion to justify their reasons for voting "Yes", especially if they were Christian, which if quite ironic since the New Testament never condemns gay marriage.

to try win black/hispanic votes instead of throwing donation money to spoiled A+ Hollywood actors and use them as puppets. Using Hollywood elites didn’t work, and the groups I mentioned above didn’t buy it and do not relate to them.

It also didn't help that religion exists, and so do people who use it as a reason to promote and validate their reasoning to discriminate.

I can see why NO on 8 lost 47.6% to YES 52.4%. NO Prop 8 proponents should be grateful that it's not as lopsided as Prop 22 in year 2000, they should see the current as progress (who knows… maybe 10-20 years from now gay rights will get their way).

No, they are NOT going to be graceful in defeat, considering all of the shit the Yes side did to get it passed.

They lied and said that children would be taught game marriage in school, sex ed for pre-schools would be mandatory, and that heterosexual couples would lose their benefits. Oh let's not forget about outsider donations from Mormons that live out of state and BLACKMAIL. Isn't extortion grand?

Religion, Mormon's, appeals to emotion (using children in commercials), and hypocritical "Christians" is why Prop. 8 passed. Saying that it was because nobody went "door-to-door" is complete horseshit when you look at the whole picture.

My bad if her PC-less and straight-forward approach offended you.

No, it simply sucked out loud. If I'm going to talk about people polluting the Ocean, I wouldn't talk about famines since it's completely unrelated. It's like the bastard child of two different essays: One being about why people voted in support for Prop. 8, and the other being about the struggles that black people still face, even 140+ years later after being granted "freedom" and how they are being put down.

[solomon]

Guys can we PLEASE stop arguing over Prop 8, that's not what this thread is about.

[Luminisk]

Yes, let it be over... in this thread go start a new one if you guys want to continue.

How about that new Obama administration?
Al Franken still has a pretty good chance going into the recount.

[OutPhase]

Rahm Emmanuel is going to be Chief of Staff.

From what I've read about him, he's one crazy bastard who doesn't take crap.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by james0246

In other news, it seems that Gun Sales are on the rise. Thankfully it is mostly due to people thinking that Obama will start legislation to make it harder to buy guns, and not because they wish to attack Obama supporters, or something equally crazy and evil.

I spent some time perusing the exit poll results at CNN. Leaving aside race, the personal characteristic that seemed most strongly correlated with candidate preference was gun ownership. Forty percent of the sample reported owning a gun, and they voted 2-1 in favor of McCain. The remaining unarmed sixty percent voted 2-1 for Obama.

I hope your interpretation of the surge in gun purchases turns out to be the correct one. I have no doubt there are people in this country who are pretty upset at the idea of a black person living in the White House, and I'm sure a good fraction of them own guns.

[solomon]

I am black and am going to give a fair amount of those peeps the benefit of the doubt, even though I don't interpret the 2nd ammendment like they do.

As fer Obama, he's gonna have to be able to manage the left wing of his party effectively. My dad who is a moderate Dem said that Obama may only have wiggle room for stem cell research, most other social issues we argue shouldn't be heavily emphasized at least in the short term cause it will only backfire later.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Razer_2mb

Rahm Emmanuel is going to be Chief of Staff.

From what I've read about him, he's one crazy bastard who doesn't take crap.

I think Obama will kind of need that seeing as how there will be a signifiganct amount of people who will

1. Not take him seriously being only a former Junior Senator
2. Will just be plain wary/distrusting of him, which would impeade important legislation/policy action.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Luminisk

Yes, let it be over... in this thread go start a new one if you guys want to continue.

Technically the elections are over and this thread should be locked - if you want to discuss the new face of the government, go start a new thread over it? Prop 8 was an issue raised and voted on during the presidential elections; it technically has more merit to be discussed than pondering over who will be assigned to what position in the aftermath of Obama's nomination.

Not that I care whether either topic is discussed here, and not that I'm targeting you, Luminisk (your post just happened to be the most recent that said what I wanted to reply to). I just find it frustrating when people try to shut down one conversation by calling it off-topic when it isn't really.

[Luminisk]

In the end prop 8 is a huge waste of time and money.
Was anything resolved? Is gay marriage gone? Has the homosexual admitted they are sinners damned to hell?
No, nothing is resolved; and a resolution will never be reached unless all the 50 states can come to agreement on what constitutes a marriage (fat chance) or the federal government steps in and put their foot down (but then we will have a fed v state rights issue). Either way if the prop pass or fail this country as a whole haven't moved anywhere closer to a solution.

The time, the money, the emotions and hate invested in this frivolous proposition to me just simply wasn't worth it.

[Ramerin]

I'm satisfied with the election. Obama won, and that's great for me. Maybe now we'll actually have someone who can take care of the country in office, and not destroy it. Oo;

I agree w/ Luminisk

Originally Posted by Luminisk

The time, the money, the emotions and hate invested in this frivolous proposition to me just simply wasn't worth it.

[yezhanquan]

Hence, my earlier comment that the gay marriage issue is on the back-burner for now. Then, along comes a case for the Federal Supreme Court to consider...