Us Election

[BabyFergstar]

I didn't think I was getting heated...if anybody is offended by what I've posted, I apologize, but I try to keep my opinions mellow...you should see me on Facebook without these restrictions! LOL I don't see what the big deal is about people expressing opinions...I don't see either side getting personal...but I do have a thick enough skin that perhaps I haven't noticed...I'll leave it to the mods to decide...but these are all issues surrounding the election. As long as it stays a discussion and doesn't turn into a flame war, I think it's silly to impose boundaries or lock a thread.

Just my two cents...is that tax deductible?...

[Guest diaperboykcmo]

I'm done after this..

Fergstar, you make your little pot shots. Ie Tea Party you call them Tea Baggers. I haven't seen anyone on here call the democrats names.

You say Romney dosen't support woman's rights LOL.. Think how asinine that is!! He's married, he has a mom, not sure if he has sisters or not! Pretty sure he supports woman.

You wanna talk about not supporting woman, more woman are unemployed under BHO

You're wrong BHO's policies have driven up the gas prices!!

He's for Green technology. He's against coal!

He's against the Keystone pipe deal.

When Gas Prices went up under Bush, he said we we're going to start offshore drilling, looking at drilling here at home.

Guess what Prices dropped!!

OPEC Knows if we ever pulled our heads out our ass! If we drilled here enviromental friendly of course. We would have enough oil here, that we could tell them to drown in their oil!!

I'M DONE

[luv2beSpanked]

Hey Fergstar when was the last time a sitting President gone to a UN assembly and not meet with a single world leader but had more than enough time to go on some silly morning talk show with a bunch of nagging women? Also a US ambassedor was murdered and he says it was due to a 14 minute video that started the violance in the middle east when in fact he knew it was a planned terrorist attack 24 hours of it happening by reports from the CIA and NSA! But yet he goes out and lies to the American public why he thinks it happened! Also when did saying the words "terrorist" and "radical muslim" become racist? If you're going to stick with that then you better get after Maddona for calling BHO a muslim then! And she is a big supporter for BHO! Also Diperboykcmo is correct with his facts.

As for who I'm voting for its Romney! I'd rather have Romney piss off people in every country he's been to than to have a President lower himself to them and send my tax dollars to a country who flat out said that America is the enemy! Also I don't care who balanced the budget! I want a President and Senate Majority Leader to actually pass a budget unlike whats happened the last 3 years with the senate not even bringing one to the floor to get voted on! Seems Congress is atleast trying to do their job, but the senate isn't even making an attempt!

So you rather have BHO spend another four years in officer spending more and more just giving it away while at the same time borrowing more and more with that little credit card from the bank of China! Sounds familiar doesn't it! Hope you were told that Socialism doesn't work without the country falling into comunism shortly after.

Also Joe Wilson was right to call BHO a liar for the remarks he said during the State of the Union address about the ACA! Turns out Nancy "You have to Pass it to find out whats in it" Polise didn't see that illegal aliens would get coverage for free in the ACA! But she would be all for that anyways since its votes from them for her which is voter fraud! Which is a reason for me for the voter ID laws to exist! And don't even say "Oh what about the poor who can't afford an ID card", I'll then say well if they dropped their cell phone plan with the new iPhone 5 then they could afford the ID card which is a cheap $15 to $20 depending on the state.

[Princess_Sheri]

Some people need to get their facts right about how EVIL Mitt Romney is. He is completely against women's rights. He wants to strip lgbt people of what little rights we already have. HE WANTS TO DESTROY MEDICARE!!!!!! There are actually people who NEED that. He's evil I tell you, EVIL!!!!

Obama has gotten a horrid rap.. However he is still a war monger and needs to go, but not if it means Romney.

[BabyFergstar]

I apologize for the "Tea Bagger" comments. You got me. Here's Mitt on women's rights.

http://www.womenarewatching.org/candidate/mitt-romney

[Mischa]

Some people need to get their facts right about how EVIL Mitt Romney is. He is completely against women's rights. He wants to strip lgbt people of what little rights we already have. HE WANTS TO DESTROY MEDICARE!!!!!! There are actually people who NEED that. He's evil I tell you, EVIL!!!!

Obama has gotten a horrid rap.. However he is still a war monger and needs to go, but not if it means Romney.

Sheri, since this is in the US Constitution

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It does not matter WHAT Romney thinks, the Supreme Court will strike down any and all attempts short of a Constitutional amendment to infringe on LGBT rights. I highly doubt there will be enough support for a Constitutional Amendment barring that.

I don't buy the notion that Obama is pro-LGBT rights, he's more like "meh, LGBT rights." His directive to not defend DOMA was foolish. He could have directed the Solicitor General to stand in front of the Supreme Court and agree with the petitioner that the Act is unconstitutional, furthermore, he could have pushed the Respect for Marriage Act through with the same level of gusto he put into Obamacare.

[ForbiddenFruit]

[snip]

Sheri, since this is in the US Constitution

[snip]

It does not matter WHAT Romney thinks, the Supreme Court will strike down any and all attempts short of a Constitutional amendment to infringe on LGBT rights. I highly doubt there will be enough support for a Constitutional Amendment barring that.

I don't buy the notion that Obama is pro-LGBT rights, he's more like "meh, LGBT rights." His directive to not defend DOMA was foolish. He could have directed the Solicitor General to stand in front of the Supreme Court and agree with the petitioner that the Act is unconstitutional, furthermore, he could have pushed the Respect for Marriage Act through with the same level of gusto he put into Obamacare.

Though I'll concede you can never see a constitutional amendment that does damage, it's a different story at a state level.

These frames are taken from a TED talk video so my apologies if you can't see the actual writing. Though the frames state late January, these are taken from a video that was put out in June, so it's unlikely they've changed since then (with the exception of Lincoln, Nebraska, which now has LGBT status under correct protection).

In the white states, you can lose your accomodation (rented) for no reason beyond being LGBT. In the light blue ones, you can't be kicked out for being gay, lesbian or bisexual but you can be for being trans. The dark blue ones are the only states with full protection.

In the white states in this other one, you can lose your job just for being LGBT. Pink means you can be fired for being trans. Purple is full protection.

Hell, this is a polite way of putting it. You want me to bring up what happened in Anoka-Hennepin, Minnesota? The constitution doesn't seem to be stopping the mobocracy, despite: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I struggle to see a focus on states' rights as little beyond letting the inmates run the asylum (though I will admit I get that it would piss them off to see an infringement on 'muh rights' to tell other people how to live). You can go ahead and call corporations people, I've little quarrel with that, but states aren't people, and I fail to see the justice in waiting for enough of the illiterati to come round to reality.

[Mischa]

Though I'll concede you can never see a constitutional amendment that does damage, it's a different story at a state level.

These frames are taken from a TED talk video so my apologies if you can't see the actual writing. Though the frames state late January, these are taken from a video that was put out in June, so it's unlikely they've changed since then (with the exception of Lincoln, Nebraska, which now has LGBT status under correct protection).

In the white states, you can lose your accomodation (rented) for no reason beyond being LGBT. In the light blue ones, you can't be kicked out for being gay, lesbian or bisexual but you can be for being trans. The dark blue ones are the only states with full protection.

In the white states in this other one, you can lose your job just for being LGBT. Pink means you can be fired for being trans. Purple is full protection.

Hell, this is a polite way of putting it. You want me to bring up what happened in Anoka-Hennepin, Minnesota? The constitution doesn't seem to be stopping the mobocracy, despite: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I struggle to see a focus on states' rights as little beyond letting the inmates run the asylum (though I will admit I get that it would piss them off to see an infringement on 'muh rights' to tell other people how to live). You can go ahead and call corporations people, I've little quarrel with that, but states aren't people, and I fail to see the justice in waiting for enough of the illiterati to come round to reality.

Fruit, this just illustrates your lack of knowledge of the American Way:

The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land of the United States of America. It is the ultimate trump in that any law passed in the United States must conform to the limits imposed within the Constitution, the determination of whether or not a law violates the Constitution can only be made by a court with sufficient judicial review powers. State Constitutions only have limits within that state.

There is another clause in the constitution--I believe it is in the 14th Amendment--that extends the provisions to any level of government. US Supreme Court holdings have made no distinction between municipal boards of education (Brown v. Board, Tinker v. Des Moines) and the federal or state government.

There was once a time when there were Jim Crow Laws on the books, segregating African-Americans from Whites. Now, however, there are none, as the US Supreme Court considers African-Americans equal under the law. The same thing will happen once there is a challenge to LGBT discrimination.

States DO have rights, the 10th Amendment clearly states this. The United States is a country built upon the principle of federalism.

[BBoy]

You are talking election here but one thing that I don't understand about the US (Canada here) why are you so against touching the US Constitution? You have to admit it is very out of date. Pretty much all the major democracies have revamped their contitutions in the past 50 years to be with the times. But in the USA is seems that it is sacralige (sic) to touch it.

Seems somewhat wrong not to revamp something that is out of date. Or do you feel it is still very current?

[Mischa]

You are talking election here but one thing that I don't understand about the US (Canada here) why are you so against touching the US Constitution? You have to admit it is very out of date. Pretty much all the major democracies have revamped their contitutions in the past 50 years to be with the times. But in the USA is seems that it is sacralige (sic) to touch it.

Seems somewhat wrong not to revamp something that is out of date. Or do you feel it is still very current?

I agree there are many things that are out of date with the US Constitution. The way people put it is that the US Constitution is a living and breathing document. Well, if that's the case, the thing is on life support.as it is now.

The reason the Constitution hasn't been amended any more than twenty-seven times, is because it is a long and drawn out process to draft and then ratify the amendment. The last Amendment to the US Constitution, added in 1992, has a history going back to 1788.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing the entire Constitution revamped in such a way that would allow some socialist values.

[DailyDi]

Well, since no one is following my instructions... I'll give my view:

I am actively supporting Obama for three reasons:

1. Healthcare (Self employed with pre-existing conditions. The high risk pool and exchanges will make coverage affordable for me finally.)

2. Equality for All regardless of gender or orientation.

3. He's not Mitt Romney.

[puffybedwetter]

Well, since no one is following my instructions... I'll give my view:

I am actively supporting Obama for three reasons:

1. Healthcare (Self employed with pre-existing conditions. The high risk pool and exchanges will make coverage affordable for me finally.)

2. Equality for All regardless of gender or orientation.

3. He's not Mitt Romney.

Glad you didn't lock it? Obama's bad has outweighed Obama's goods for me. However there's some congressmen I'm holding accountable for that.

[puffybedwetter]

Though I'll concede you can never see a constitutional amendment that does damage, it's a different story at a state level.

These frames are taken from a TED talk video so my apologies if you can't see the actual writing. Though the frames state late January, these are taken from a video that was put out in June, so it's unlikely they've changed since then (with the exception of Lincoln, Nebraska, which now has LGBT status under correct protection).

In the white states, you can lose your accomodation (rented) for no reason beyond being LGBT. In the light blue ones, you can't be kicked out for being gay, lesbian or bisexual but you can be for being trans. The dark blue ones are the only states with full protection.

In the white states in this other one, you can lose your job just for being LGBT. Pink means you can be fired for being trans. Purple is full protection.

Hell, this is a polite way of putting it. You want me to bring up what happened in Anoka-Hennepin, Minnesota? The constitution doesn't seem to be stopping the mobocracy, despite: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I struggle to see a focus on states' rights as little beyond letting the inmates run the asylum (though I will admit I get that it would piss them off to see an infringement on 'muh rights' to tell other people how to live). You can go ahead and call corporations people, I've little quarrel with that, but states aren't people, and I fail to see the justice in waiting for enough of the illiterati to come round to reality.

You're full of ignorance. I have plenty of gay friends here in tx and they are homeowners and have mortgages. The're is a difference between a strike lgbt individual between a broke lgbt individual. One can pay his bills the other can't. Individual fiscal responsibility got us in this mess haven't you read how the first great depression started? People where buying with their eyes instead of their wallets, purse or wherever they stored their money. When you spend more than what you make you always get a mess in return. Big government is not the answer. When you have a government that outgrows it's purpose eventually they start to expand. Look at our neighbors government in Mexico. They own everything from the electric company to the monopolized gasoline station. Yet they say profits are for their people, but the majority live in poverty

Only politicians and drug cartels are the ones who have a successful living. But you dont seem to care as long as their citizens get their human rights no?

[Diapered Jason]

One of the very interesting things that will be on the plate of the next president is he will likely have to replace 2 or 3 supreme court judges. Since some of the supreme court judges are very near retirement, the next president will have the ability to shape the opinion of the supreme court for probably another 40 years. Whoever we do elect, he could be one of our most powerful presidents in our nation's history. Make sure you play your role in the coming election.

[ForbiddenFruit]

'Next' as in the coming or 'four years after this one'?

[ForbiddenFruit]

You're full of ignorance. I have plenty of gay friends here in tx and they are homeowners and have mortgages. The're is a difference between a strike lgbt individual between a broke lgbt individual. One can pay his bills the other can't. Individual fiscal responsibility got us in this mess haven't you read how the first great depression started? People where buying with their eyes instead of their wallets, purse or wherever they stored their money. When you spend more than what you make you always get a mess in return. Big government is not the answer. When you have a government that outgrows it's purpose eventually they start to expand. Look at our neighbors government in Mexico. They own everything from the electric company to the monopolized gasoline station. Yet they say profits are for their people, but the majority live in poverty

Only politicians and drug cartels are the ones who have a successful living. But you dont seem to care as long as their citizens get their human rights no?

What a ridiculous non sequitur. And no, I don't care, because I put human rights on a higher priority. Does that seem so damn awful to you that I care about people more than money?

[puffybedwetter]

What a ridiculous non sequitur. And no, I don't care, because I put human rights on a higher priority. Does that seem so damn awful to you that I care about people more than money?

Fail I noticed you're from Ireland. I'm pretty sure the mess your country is. It's also Bush's fault too. Bottom line. I do not want my country to end up like yours.

[Guest Lil_Lilo]

I will vote for any man, woman or dog...just not Obama..

[Mischa]

What a ridiculous non sequitur. And no, I don't care, because I put human rights on a higher priority. Does that seem so damn awful to you that I care about people more than money?

While there's a good deal of progress needed to be made for LGBT rights, the first step has to lay with the legislative branch of either the states or the federal government, then it is up to private parties to file lawsuits to challenge the Constitutionality of the law. Once DOMA has wound its way through the American judicial system and struck down, people will then be able to launch other legal attacks upon other Federal laws.

The Civil Rights Movement took over 100 years to win racial equality. Now, with the easy accessibility of civil rights attorneys, it is a lot easier to litigate for human rights. Note, though that I said easier, not faster.

That all being said, you can't dismiss fiscal irresponsibility with an argument that it's for human rights. There should be a balance.

[puffybedwetter]

Some say "it's the economy stupid" gay or strait money is money you know how much is a trillion? Im willing to bet that not all of our combined net worth (in this forum) will not even come close to one.

[Diapered Jason]

Don't underestimate Mexico. It is predicted they will become one of the world's next big economies. They grew 5.5% last year, but people are way to focused on the drug wars. Where China is likely to fail, Mexico will succeed. Yeah, I do not think China has a future unless they change governments. You can already see the start of the workers revolt in the factories. Since China's system is based on control and is a dictatorship, their system will break as soon as they lose control.

[puffybedwetter]

No sir Mexico will never come out of its shell unless the whole government is overthrown. From policemen upward they will bend over backwards for a dollar bill. One good thing about Mexico they don't want that corrupt prd party there. However you can never own land Mexico and if you happen to find oil or gold that belongs to the government.

[Diapered Jason]

I don't think it is so cut and dry like that. I think you can own land in Mexico depending on location, but the laws regarding the purchasing of land in Mexico are cumbersome and hard to follow. What is really interesting is where we will see where all the manufacturing go after the shipping costs continue to rise due to rising fuel prices. Mexico's border with the U.S. gives it a huge advantage over China and India.

[ForbiddenFruit]

While there's a good deal of progress needed to be made for LGBT rights, the first step has to lay with the legislative branch of either the states or the federal government, then it is up to private parties to file lawsuits to challenge the Constitutionality of the law. Once DOMA has wound its way through the American judicial system and struck down, people will then be able to launch other legal attacks upon other Federal laws.

The Civil Rights Movement took over 100 years to win racial equality. Now, with the easy accessibility of civil rights attorneys, it is a lot easier to litigate for human rights. Note, though that I said easier, not faster.

That all being said, you can't dismiss fiscal irresponsibility with an argument that it's for human rights. There should be a balance.

I'm always cynical of the race analogy, in part because I don't think it's a good idea to prop up your own case with another one, but also because though there are similarities, the actual cases are so very damn different, purely because of the idea of being gay being 'immutable' (which is more contentious, for obvious reasons, than being black) and whether or not it's a choice (it isn't, common sense says as much, but I think trying to prove it isn't is going the wrong way about it in the first place - and science and common sense aren't things that go well with the kind of folk you're trying to convince).

All that's needed is to wait a generation until a large chunk of the old fogeys die off, quite frankly, but hey, assholes are assholes and there always will be terrible states. You are aware Alabama didn't throw out its ban on interracial marriage until 33 years after Loving V Virginia, right?

[Repaid1]

Not trying to sway anyones vote, but I did notice that the poll count would be tied had anyone not voting for the two primarys and switched to the republican vote