Suikoden Uncouth and Illegal Keystone Omniscient Xperience

Suikox Home | The Speculation Shelter | Tablet of Stars | Suikoden Timeline | Suikoden Geography |Legacies


  [ View Profile | Edit Profile | Nation System | Members | Groups | Search | Register | Check PMs | Log in | FAQ ]

US Elections 2008
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 25, 26, 27  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Community Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Admiral Ackbar

Seekers of Hawke's Hot Stuff


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2660
Location: Kesh
1008758 Potch
100 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Yeah, the Repubs seem to be in a state of inner turmoil. Everything they were trying to get accomplished has failed them this election aside from gay inequality. And worse, McCain was the one candidate that was supposed to represent the fiscal- and secular-based aspects of the Republican Party, the one candidate who would not use religion to get ahead and who would focus on fiscal issues that had always been at the heard of the Republican Party. And he spent his entire campaign sucking up to evengelicals (most of whom he had insulted when he was running against Bush) and Obama's economic policies got more support. McCain turned his back on the things he once stood for and essentially copied Bush's election choices to try and eke out a win in an election he probably knew was hopeless.

The Repubs are coming to the realization that views that were once considered "liberal" on issues like environmentalism, global warming, the Iraq War, national health care, evolution in schools, and others are now becoming the "mainstream" view. I seriously think they're going to change their platform in the near future to sort-of-maybe-a-little embrace these issues, or at least not be so opposed to them, since it will turn away voters who are more likely to support Dems at this point.

Unfortunately, gay marriage was their one huge success this election so I'm sure they'll see it as a rallying point for their uber-religious base, and it's something they'll be opposed to for a very long time. They're going to cling to the issue like mad over the next 4-8 years. I honestly see it becoming the major wedge issue of the next election, moreso than it was during Gore or Kerry's campaigns.
_________________
Hayashi Ujitsuna wrote:
Lavender hotpants help me get to sleep with their relaxing scent, I also enjoy wearing Glittery belt buckles with them so I feel like a queen.


^Actual quote!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gil-galad

Flame of the West


Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Post Count: 6007
Location: Aya Sankha
2849957 Potch
200 Soldiers
46 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

[quote="Admiral Ackbar":243h9tbz]
Unfortunately, gay marriage was their one huge success this election so I'm sure they'll see it as a rallying point for their uber-religious base, and it's something they'll be opposed to for a very long time. They're going to cling to the issue like mad over the next 4-8 years. I honestly see it becoming the major wedge issue of the next election, moreso than it was during Gore or Kerry's campaigns.


So long as neither side continues to take a stand on the issue, I don't see it developing into an issue on the Presidential level. The only way we'll be able to achieve success is through the courts. That's the way minorities always have to gain rights, because it's too controversial for a national politician to risk his career on (sadly).
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Yvl

Sanctus


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Post Count: 5979
Location: Senan
55224 Potch
1063 Soldiers
12421 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:
The Repubs are coming to the realization that views that were once considered "liberal" on issues like environmentalism, global warming, the Iraq War, national health care, evolution in schools, and others are now becoming the "mainstream" view. I seriously think they're going to change their platform in the near future to sort-of-maybe-a-little embrace these issues, or at least not be so opposed to them, since it will turn away voters who are more likely to support Dems at this point.

I'm not seeing them come to that conclusion. Our politics are based on "take the opposite side of your opponent to try to divide the country in two." They aren't going to realize that the country has shifted to the left for another few election cycles, and that's only if the democrats don't fuck themselves like they usually do. Conservative talk show hosts are actually saying that they need to move even more to the right, hence the interest in Jindal or Palin.

So, again, Zombie Hannibal '12.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Starslasher

Chunks of Chaco-late.


Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Post Count: 6482
Location: Dunan Delta
1177790 Potch
300 Soldiers
35 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:38 am    Post subject: Re: US Elections 2008 Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Actaully, Yvl, i did hear something about that: I think that it was on The Young Turks (Wierd name for an American political group, i know) YouTube clip. Apparently, yeah, supporters for McCain/Palin actaully believed that they didn't win because they weren't being conservative enough, which i think can be safely translated into "not smearing Obama enough".



[quote="poorguy171":22rhk1jv]~Separation of church and state is essentially impossible. Everyone's definition of morals and what is 'right' or 'wrong' is based on their personal beliefs, and most people's beliefs stem from their 'religion' (in this case, religion refers to organized religion). Why should a Christian's or Buddhist's belief's not be allowed in policy-making, but an atheist's be allowed? If we're going to have any sort of action regarding morality, we'll need to take into consideration all people's beliefs, regardless of beliefs stem from.


Well, as i understood the nature of a secular state, at least from what I heard from Mr. Abdolkarim Soroush, being secular was meaning using rationality without trying to use religion to explain it. So, for a very basic example, murder can be reasonably outlawed on the grounds that taking a person's life is not overall productive to society, instead of saying that "God said so". So decisions from its leaders are supposed to be made from human reasoning rather than from biblical references.





Quote:

"Homosexuals should not be allowed to 'marry' (including civil unions) and raise children because children need the influence/love of both a mother and father" This one I really don't understand. My answer to this is always "what about single parents?" What about parents who teach their children to swear, be racist, use physical force against bullies? Even if children are psychologically influenced by homosexual parents (which has yet to be proven), what makes those influences so much worse than the others I listed (and many more)?


Well, not meaning to be anti-homosexuality, but the arguement that i hear from more conservative-minded people is that it's really more a case of raising a child in a normal family, as kids are often very cruel, and while grownups (well, most of them) can be civil concerning homosexuality, kids aren't. Like the saying goes, "Kids can be so cruel". The children growing up in such an environment would pretty much be osctracised and bullied for the rest of their adolescent lives. Of course, the reationality for the arguement is that the people to blame aren't the bullies, but at one of the parents for not being a member of the opposite sex :roll:

It's surprising for me, throughout the past 8 years, that same sex marriage was sever an issue. i thought that when it came to tolerating the choice of someone's sexual orientation, the question about marriages wouldn't be brought up for an arguement. This might have been a question 15-20 years ago, when being gay was more questionable, but i thought that organisations, government included, shouldn't discrimintate against someone for their sexual orientation at this time, and especially in America? I was under the assumption that the majority of people at Capitol Hill have watched Philadelphia before.
_________________
Guardian of Greenhill & Devoted Protector of Oulan



Bork! Bork! Bork!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Yvl

Sanctus


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Post Count: 5979
Location: Senan
55224 Potch
1063 Soldiers
12421 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:
Well, not meaning to be anti-homosexuality, but the arguement that i hear from more conservative-minded people is that it's really more a case of raising a child in a normal family, as kids are often very cruel, and while grownups (well, most of them) can be civil concerning homosexuality, kids aren't. Like the saying goes, "Kids can be so cruel". The children growing up in such an environment would pretty much be osctracised and bullied for the rest of their adolescent lives. Of course, the reationality for the arguement is that the people to blame aren't the bullies, but at one of the parents for not being a member of the opposite sex :roll:

That's what I call "grasping for straws." I've heard it all (been arguing this for half a decade now), there is seriously no solid argument against gay marriage.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Timbo

The Wandering Prophets


Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Post Count: 2964
Location: Darja
410837 Potch
300 Soldiers
835 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:50 pm    Post subject: Re: US Elections 2008 Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

[quote="Yvl":9do9ho8m]
Quote:
Well, not meaning to be anti-homosexuality, but the arguement that i hear from more conservative-minded people is that it's really more a case of raising a child in a normal family, as kids are often very cruel, and while grownups (well, most of them) can be civil concerning homosexuality, kids aren't. Like the saying goes, "Kids can be so cruel". The children growing up in such an environment would pretty much be osctracised and bullied for the rest of their adolescent lives. Of course, the reationality for the arguement is that the people to blame aren't the bullies, but at one of the parents for not being a member of the opposite sex :roll:

That's what I call "grasping for straws." I've heard it all (been arguing this for half a decade now), there is seriously no solid argument against gay marriage.


I've got to agree. Ban gay marriage because the kids get made fun of? That's absurd.

First off, kids don't necessarily follow from a marriage, so there may not be kids, making the argument completely null. Assuming the gay couple did have kids, most kids don't really know about other kid's parents, so I don't think it would be public knowledge at school and other places kids group together. Secondly, the kids will get made fun off and ostracized for numerous other reasons through their lives. Whether it is being too poor, being too effeminate, being too goth, being too rich, being too 'white', being too 'black', being too fat, being too skinny, being too smart, being too dumb- hell, you name it,kids make fun of it. If the purpose was to stop kids from being ostracized, where is the legislation for any of those problems? Third, if the kids are being ostracized for having gay parents, why are the parents the ones being targeted by laws? Why not promote social awareness of homosexuals to stop gay bashing to stop the problem, or enforce legislation against those doing the bashing?
_________________
"There is no normal life, there's just life. Now get on with it"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ujitsuna

Red Shoes Dance


Joined: 24 May 2006
Post Count: 4823
Location: Pale Plains
936547 Potch
12000 Soldiers
675 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

[quote="Yvl":3m7q5a1q]That's what I call "grasping for straws." I've heard it all (been arguing this for half a decade now), there is seriously no solid argument against gay marriage.


I always thought that most were against gay marriage because of the term "marriage" or the threat they see to normal marriage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Admiral Ackbar

Seekers of Hawke's Hot Stuff


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2660
Location: Kesh
1008758 Potch
100 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Yeah those two reasons, plus religion.

Though the first point you make (using the term "marriage") isn't a valid one IMO. Opponents of marriage keep saying that we should be happy with civil unions because they are the same thing. That the two are identical, and we should be happy to get the same rights without "infringing" on the term marriage. There is a problem with that: its Seperate But Equal. Which is unconstitutional. Our country has been through that before. You cannot deny a select group of Americans that have not broken the law a *different* form of something and deny them the real thing. You cannot offer them a substitute to replace the real deal.

And civil unions aren't equal, no matter what someone says. The federal government doesn't recognize them as marriage. That alone is a huge deal. If you have a partner via civil union outside the country who is not a US citizen, you cannot get them into the country as easily as you could if you were married.

In a somewhat related note (?) an internal Mormon memo (and supposedly a lot more to come) has been leaked to the mainstream media showing that back in 1997 the Mormon Church had first started planning against gay marriage in California. They said they had a "mid-fifties" chance of success but that they'd need to ally with the Catholic Church in order to win. From the memo:

Quote:
"Anti-H.L.M. (presumably "homosexual legal marriage") legislation through both Houses of the California Legislature appears virtually impossible at the preent. There is a consensus that referendum is the only route. While expensive, there are at least two coalitions coming together with one of them showing promise as to raising money.

Richard Wirthlin has run a survey which shows public support for our position in the mid-fifty percentile. As in Hawaii, his survey shows that the public image of the Catholic Church higher than our Church. In other words, if we get into this, they are the ones with which to join."

_________________
Hayashi Ujitsuna wrote:
Lavender hotpants help me get to sleep with their relaxing scent, I also enjoy wearing Glittery belt buckles with them so I feel like a queen.


^Actual quote!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Yvl

Sanctus


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Post Count: 5979
Location: Senan
55224 Potch
1063 Soldiers
12421 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Re: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

[quote="Ujitsuna":2orq55qq][quote="Yvl":2orq55qq]Th at's what I call "grasping for straws." I've heard it all (been arguing this for half a decade now), there is seriously no solid argument against gay marriage.


I always thought that most were against gay marriage because of the term "marriage" or the threat they see to normal marriage.
If "Marriage" is such a sacred term, then it shouldn't be involved in government to begin with. Call both gay and straight marriages "Civil Unions" for legal purposes.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Re: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

[quote="Yvl":ey35wj9b][quote="Ujitsuna":ey35wj9b][q uote="Yvl":ey35wj9b]That's what I call "grasping for straws." I've heard it all (been arguing this for half a decade now), there is seriously no solid argument against gay marriage.


I always thought that most were against gay marriage because of the term "marriage" or the threat they see to normal marriage.
If "Marriage" is such a sacred term, then it shouldn't be involved in government to begin with. Call both gay and straight marriages "Civil Unions" for legal purposes.

I agree, actually. Marriage, in itself, should have no tax or governmental benefits. It's a religious ceremony and should be treated as such. No licenses for it, no government recognition, no tax breaks, etc.

If you want a tax benefit for people living together under a combined income for business or personal uses, make it separate from marriage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Tullaryx

Custodiae Corvi


Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Post Count: 5577
Location: Apacheta
4092785 Potch
200 Soldiers
20 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I wonder what are some of the reactions from Obama supporters who don't have much love for the Clintons will have after seeing the AG post given to Bill Clinton's former Deputy Attorney General (Eric Holder). Not to mention Obama's Chief of Staff being a long-time Clinton presidential aide (Rahm Emanuel). Then there's the top post of Secretary of State being Hilary's if she wants it from the buzz surrounding that particular cabinet post.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

[quote="Tullaryx":3ob8alc1]I wonder what are some of the reactions from Obama supporters who don't have much love for the Clintons will have after seeing the AG post given to Bill Clinton's former Deputy Attorney General (Eric Holder). Not to mention Obama's Chief of Staff being a long-time Clinton presidential aide (Rahm Emanuel). Then there's the top post of Secretary of State being Hilary's if she wants it from the buzz surrounding that particular cabinet post.


Not to mention that, with an entire platform of change, he's got a lot of insiders and career politicians surrounding him now.

Emanuel in particular is notorious for it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Tullaryx

Custodiae Corvi


Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Post Count: 5577
Location: Apacheta
4092785 Potch
200 Soldiers
20 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I actually think that bringing in these sort of people is a good thing if he wants his agenda to be passed, or at the very least be sold well to the public. What's the point in change when people who have no idea of how the system works gets bogged down by veteran insiders. I think his most ardent and youthful supporters need to figure out sooner than later that electing him to be the next President was the easy part. Now, he actually has to figure out a way to follow-thru on all those promises.

The appointment of Emanuel as his Chief of Staff was a good move. While Republicans will see him as very partisan --- especially how he ran the 2006 campaign to wrest control of Congress from the GOP --- I think him coming up thru the Clinton administration will have given him insight on how to sell a centrist-left agenda to the far-left and the moderate-right. Even the idea of putting Hilary in the post of Secretary of State I see as a good and calculating move if she accepts it. If she stays as senator of NY --- a state that has no term-limits --- there's a good chance she could hold a major influence on how legislation is passed. She's still quite popular and could be seen as just waiting in the wings for Obama to stumble. If she's SecState, Obama may not have to worry about her power growing in the Senate and instead get a replacement senator who probably will be more friendly towards him and his administration.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Starslasher

Chunks of Chaco-late.


Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Post Count: 6482
Location: Dunan Delta
1177790 Potch
300 Soldiers
35 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I thought that i would revive the thread paritcularly with the Prop 8 outrage debate. But more specifically, with the [url=http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the -musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team- jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones:2t20zy0f]Prop 8-The Musical[/url:2t20zy0f] video that was created a few days ago.


What can Americans do to overturn Prop 8?
_________________
Guardian of Greenhill & Devoted Protector of Oulan



Bork! Bork! Bork!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Jowy Atreides




Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265

486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... on_8_(2008)#Post-election_events

The Senate will either have 58 or 59 Democrats, depending on how Minnesota turns out. In-between 50 and 60, the number doesn't really matter. Anything over 50 is a majority, and anything over 60 is filibuster-proof. Whether it's 58 or 59 isn't particularly relevant. It would be funny to have Al Franken as a Senator though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Community Forum All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 26 of 27

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
suikox.com by: Vextor


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  Username:    Password:      Remember me