U.S. Politics

[Bryancd]

I just don't see how fronting a more traditional conservative ticket would have been a better option, King. Conservative Republican's, who ironically enough should be more receptive to a teenager wanting to actaully have her baby, are still going to vote MCain. They may not like Palin, but there is no way they will vote for Obama and they will not stay home. They are stuck, they had 8 years and no way a conservative ticket win's this election.

Our problem with Palin's daughter is not that she wants to have it.  Its that she is having it and she's not married.....or am I just an "old fart" and Republican's no longer make a big deal about pre-marital sex?  
Otherwise yes, she does seem to be pro-life which we will accept. 

King

P.S.  Yes, I made three posts.  Rawr!!  ;)

OK, King, I can understand that but as a conservative Republican, are you just going to stay home on Nov. 5th because of Palin's daughter? I say there is zero chance conservative Republican's still don't support the ticket, a ticket that may draw in moderates in sufficient numbers to win the election. A conservative VP pick and this game would have been over.

I also want to go on record saying that I like Obama a great deal. He's a very interesting public servant and I look forward to seeing him continue to grow and eveolve. I won't vote for him but he has my respect.

[davekill]

Do you think that Obama will replace Joe Bidden and with a more popular running mate? Nancy Pelosi?

Maybe he should have gone with the logical choice at the time - Hillary Clinton.

Oh God, please not Pelosi, I really don't like her. I don't know if Hilary would have taken the VP. I think she runs again in 4 or 8 years depending on how this election play's out.

Yeah, I kind of thought that Hillary was too politically ambitious for Obama. He wouldn't want to have someone taste his food or start his car everyday :)

I wouldn't be too hard on Palin's daughter, this isn't the first teenager to get pregnant.
Black, White, rich and poor kids make mistakes - always have and always will.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

I just don't see how fronting a more traditional conservative ticket would have been a better option, King. Conservative Republican's, who ironically enough should be more receptive to a teenager wanting to actaully have her baby, are still going to vote MCain. They may not like Palin, but there is no way they will vote for Obama and they will not stay home. They are stuck, they had 8 years and no way a conservative ticket win's this election.

Our problem with Palin's daughter is not that she wants to have it.  Its that she is having it and she's not married.....or am I just an "old fart" and Republican's no longer make a big deal about pre-marital sex?  
Otherwise yes, she does seem to be pro-life which we will accept. 

King

P.S.  Yes, I made three posts.  Rawr!!  ;)

OK, King, I can understand that but as a conservative Republican, are you just going to stay home on Nov. 5th because of Palin's daughter? I say there is zero chance conservative Republican's still don't support the ticket, a ticket that may draw in moderates in sufficient numbers to win the election. A conservative VP pick and this game would have been over.

I also want to go on record saying that I like Obama a great deal. He's a very interesting public servant and I look forward to seeing him continue to grow and eveolve. I won't vote for him but he has my respect.

That is probably true.  If he had chosen other than Palin, it might be over for him......we'll just have to see. 

Yes, everyone makes mistakes.  We just don't like being reminded that.  ;)

King

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Do you think that Obama will replace Joe Bidden and with a more popular running mate? Nancy Pelosi?

Maybe he should have gone with the logical choice at the time - Hillary Clinton.

If he had done that.....I doubt he would be in such a great position.  To be honest, I wouldn't have given him another thought.  And although I've been against him, at least with his current choice, he is an option.  If he had chosen Hillary.....uhh...no ty. 

King

[sheldor]

Just something to think about. If anyone saw Bill Maher on Friday night, they did a piece on how there was barely no mention of George Bush during the convention. There where no buttons, no signs, and he didn't even come in person. He has been our president elected for eight years! Eight years! And now he is persona non Grata! Now you would over look those eight years and give that party a pass and elect yet another from the same party?

When Nixon goofed, he resigned, when Ford tripped Carter beat him, when Carter goofed he got beat by Regan, when Bush 1 and the Republicans goofed, they got beat by Clinton twice, when Clinton, Gore, and the other dems goofed, they got beat by Bush 2 twice!, now he have Bush 2 who beats them all out in goofs and you want more?

This failed leader, his party, and their candidate need to cool their heels for at least the next four years and give someone else a equal chance to goof or succeed. This is after all the land of opportunity and the Republicans have had enough opportunity to be in the Executive Branch of this Government for at least the short term.

Overly simplistic? Maybe, but this is one time history needs to repeat itself.  :2cents

Bush isn't running for president.  I didn't expect a speech any longer then what we heard.

[sheldor]

Do you think that Obama will replace Joe Bidden and with a more popular running mate? Nancy Pelosi?

Maybe he should have gone with the logical choice at the time - Hillary Clinton.

When Obama didn't pick Hillary, I KNEW McCain would take advantage of this.  Seriously, I had expected the senator from Texas (name escapes me).  I wouldn't doubt that Obama cut a deal with Clintons.  Maybe they offered to help in the campaign in exchange for a cabinet seat/ambassador/etc.  We'll see.  I think the country is tired of Bill Clinton and now that we have Palin, this may threaten Hillary running in 2012.

PELOSI !!??  She's a bit of a - in Harry Reids words - a shrill.  :D

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Just something to think about. If anyone saw Bill Maher on Friday night, they did a piece on how there was barely no mention of George Bush during the convention. There where no buttons, no signs, and he didn't even come in person. He has been our president elected for eight years! Eight years! And now he is persona non Grata! Now you would over look those eight years and give that party a pass and elect yet another from the same party?

When Nixon goofed, he resigned, when Ford tripped Carter beat him, when Carter goofed he got beat by Regan, when Bush 1 and the Republicans goofed, they got beat by Clinton twice, when Clinton, Gore, and the other dems goofed, they got beat by Bush 2 twice!, now he have Bush 2 who beats them all out in goofs and you want more?

This failed leader, his party, and their candidate need to cool their heels for at least the next four years and give someone else a equal chance to goof or succeed. This is after all the land of opportunity and the Republicans have had enough opportunity to be in the Executive Branch of this Government for at least the short term.

Overly simplistic? Maybe, but this is one time history needs to repeat itself.  :2cents

You know what's depressing?  Your absolutely correct.  Its almost depressing we can't find a suitable candidate for the presidency.  People revere Regen so much because even though he had his faults, we knew where he stand, he didn't backstab us and didn't embarrass us.  Now these joke-of-a-candidate people want to try and get the crown.  It saddens me that out of all of America, we chose these two. 

King

[Blackride]

There is way to much at risks for Republicans or Americans to sit back. For example:

- 2 supreme court judges at a min will be elected to the bench by the next president. Those appointments last LONG after the sitting president leaves office.

- Some of the changes Obamas presenting are a HUGE ideologically change to America. There are a lot of social programs that have to be paid for somehow. I stress to people look at Holland if you want to know how the policies will affect America or could make America look like.

- Taxes on the people that create jobs is not a good thing. 95% of America who will get tax breaks do NOT create jobs. The idea of giving tax breaks to people that do not create jobs would be to simple stimulate the economy but this is not sustaining long term growth. Under both Clinton and Reagan this country did well, and this was because jobs were created! Jobs are a long term solution while giving lowering taxes on someone is not.

[sheldor]

Can hardly wait for the debates to begin.  I hope the moderators take it as seriously as the rest of America - ask them some TOUGH questions.  For once, I may have to watch the VP debates also.  I think Biden will drop his guard and be speechless -- FINALLY !! :D

[Darth Gaos]

Well it will be a refreshing for someone to actually ask a tough question of Obama.  More to the point it will be interesting to see Obama actually have to answer a tough question.  We'll see.  I, like many, am looking forward to the debates for a change....even the VP debates.

[alanp]

Do you really want a president like the American public?

I sure don’t.  There is so much pressure for candidates to prove how they are like us.  And the other side wants to show how his opponent and the people differ.  Such as what’s on their ipod, what do they eat, read, watch, etc.  All things I really don’t care about.  Reporters try to get to the bottom of who is in and out of touch…….  But with what?

In 1967, the media spent hours upon hours on Christiaan Barnard, who preformed the first human heart transplant. 40 years later, the American people couldn’t get enough coverage of Anna Nicole’s death, Paris Hilton, and Kim Kardashian.  And just how many shows do we need on VH1 or E! letting us know who is jumping into bed with who?  Yes, we have become a strange culture.  So why would being in touch a good thing and out of touch a bad thing?

Personally, I think we should just have a basic federal government for defense, to deliver the mail, coin money, foreign relations, etc.  Not to try to fix my problems or to take care of me.  I think issues like education, transportation, law enforcement (most of it anyway), etc, are responsibility of the states, counties, and townships.  Why should a locally built school, with a board of parents, ran by a local administration, taught by local teachers have to be regulated down to what kind of cookies the kids get to eat by George Bush?

I don’t think it’s likely that the fixes to America’s problems will come from Washington DC.  It’s much more likely to me that private citizens will put forth the ideas that will do so.  For example, T. Boone Pickens (born in the same small town that I was) has proposed solar, wind, and natural gas energy plan that could break America of it’s foreign oil addiction.  It may not be the best plan but it is a huge step in the right direction of private citizens offering fixes to what government can not and will not do.

[alanp]

Could this be the compromise that solves same sex marriage questions?

There was a post about same sex marriage on this thread but I didn’t have anything to contribute that would be new or interesting until this morning.  Like most on my side of the political isle, I have never been in favor of same sex marriage until something crossed my mind making me rethink it.  When two sides can’t agree often the best thing for the situation is a compromise. 

Same sex marriage is a left of center position strongly opposed by the right.  Now the issue is, should Washington step in and force the other 48 states to honor the controversial marriage licenses issued by Massachusetts and California?   Normally I’m not in favor of that kind of forced dictation to the states.  Now here is where compromise comes in.  And it might be the most interesting since the Missouri compromise.   

Here is something to think about: are there any licenses issued in the red states not honored elsewhere?  There are.  In fact, I have one.  My state issues concealed weapons licenses to persons 21 years old or older with a clean background.  But it’s only good for Oklahoma and a few other states.  So I couldn’t legally travel to San Francisco or Boston with a pistol under my jacket. But if no other state could invalidate the Oklahoma license, I could be packing everywhere! Could this give and take negotiation be the way to go?  Perhaps it should read, no state may invalidate another state’s marriage license or issues concealed weapons license.  Then both sides could tolerate a change they would otherwise feel uncomfortable with because of what they had gained. Would I change my position on same sex marriage if it means I get to carry a gun in all 50 states?  I really had to stop and think about this one!  I’m still not sure but it’s the only thing thus far forcing me to open my mind to it.


Could I have just brought GLAAD and the NRA together?

[KingIsaacLinksr]

That is not a bad Idea AlanP.  But I seem to remember something akin to this argument a while ago....

The problem is...well, would people accept this?  I mean to me, it would make it so if I wanted to get a concealed weapon, all I would have to do is state hop.  Go to California or something then return to Oregon.  Seems like this would be abused pretty heavily.  Especially with ID Fraud nowadays. 

King

[Geekyfanboy]

Could this be the compromise that solves same sex marriage questions?

There was a post about same sex marriage on this thread but I didn't have anything to contribute that would be new or interesting until this morning.  Like most on my side of the political isle, I have never been in favor of same sex marriage until something crossed my mind making me rethink it.  When two sides can't agree often the best thing for the situation is a compromise. 

Same sex marriage is a left of center position strongly opposed by the right.  Now the issue is, should Washington step in and force the other 48 states to honor the controversial marriage licenses issued by Massachusetts and California?   Normally I'm not in favor of that kind of forced dictation to the states.  Now here is where compromise comes in.  And it might be the most interesting since the Missouri compromise.   

Here is something to think about: are there any licenses issued in the red states not honored elsewhere?  There are.  In fact, I have one.  My state issues concealed weapons licenses to persons 21 years old or older with a clean background.  But it's only good for Oklahoma and a few other states.  So I couldn't legally travel to San Francisco or Boston with a pistol under my jacket. But if no other state could invalidate the Oklahoma license, I could be packing everywhere! Could this give and take negotiation be the way to go?  Perhaps it should read, no state may invalidate another state's marriage license or issues concealed weapons license.  Then both sides could tolerate a change they would otherwise feel uncomfortable with because of what they had gained. Would I change my position on same sex marriage if it means I get to carry a gun in all 50 states?  I really had to stop and think about this one!  I'm still not sure but it's the only thing thus far forcing me to open my mind to it.


Could I have just brought GLAAD and the NRA together?

Wow.. I'm totally speechless here..

[X]

I would like to respectfully disagree with your position. You are comparing apples to bricks.

1) A concealed permit allows you to carry a loaded and dangerous weapon undetected. There is the potential for public harm when in places that don't also allow all residents the same right to carry.

2) Same sex marriage is nothing like a concealed weapon.


While some people might not agree over same sex marriage, ignoring the fundimental rights of any consenting adults to marry is just plain silly.

If you are drunk in another state with a concealed weapon and permit, you have the potential to kill someone.

Same sex marriage isn't going to kill anyone even if they are drunk.

Here is another thing.

Let's break down the sanctity of marriage for a woman.

In it's humble beginning in the deep past marriage was a contract between a father and the husband to be and the man could marry as many as he wanted in some places. The woman had no choice.

Still further in the past. Men were allowed to marry both sexes, but women couldn't, they were still property at this point.

Jump to the middle ages and women are still being forced into marriages. A woman who was raped by a man in the English control areas had no options. Either her rapist married her or he went to jail. Some men used this to rape wealthy women and then join the families of the powerful. Women were still property then and had no choice in it.

Look a 10 different cultures and you'll find 100 different ways for a man to be wed and most of them still considered the women property of their husbands.

Marriage isn't something that was great, grand, and mythic in the past that would be destroyed if same sex marriages were allowed. They are allowed and it hasn't happened.

Here is the litmus test that I go by.

If somehow two people of the same sex getting married destroys someone else's marriage, MAYBE just maybe it was really the two people that were married that was the problem and same sex marriage is nothing more than an excuse.

How can something someone else does really affect your own personal life and vows?

If marriage is some fragile thing that needs PROTECTING, maybe the best course of action would be to ban the heteros from getting married because OBVIOUSLY a huge percentage of them are failing at it. So let's protect marriage and ban heteros and see if the homosexuals can produce better odds in staying together for the long haul.


Here is a little more food for thought. All marriages in in pain. 100% of all marriages to date, in all of history, has ended in either death or divorce! ( Annulled doesn't count because that means the marriage never existed)