Good Day To Be A Liberal

[VaporTrail]

I'm not very religious and don't support gay marriage but support civil union. Don't know why gays have to cry about it when civil unions give them the same rights financially wise.

 

And I'll be completely honest, I'd rather stay in the orphanage than have two gay moms or two dads(as well as rather stay having two alcoholic parents or drug addict, which is even worse). It's just forcing an unnatural situation, you see gay animals too but they don't raise any animals, approximately 10% of them are gay just like humans.

 

Civil unions don't give gay couples the same benefits as straight couples.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

 

 

Woody- it's not a question of age. Well, maybe it is. Way back in 1970 our Woodstock Generation thought we had all the answers. Turns out we didn't. Hate to tell you in about 30-40 years, you're going to find out the same. LOL, when YOUR kids tell you you're full of shit.

 

LOL, I used to have the same argument with my uncle- 45 years ago. Was it Ben Franklin who said "those that would trade freedom for security will have neither." ? This is a lot less free country than it was in 1970. Hell, Homeland Security would have had me locked up for years with the stuff I had in my basement chem lab back then- and no, I wasn't making meth- just had all the ingredients to whip up some rocket fuel.

 

Ballpeen has a very valid point- the way our Electoral College is set up- you carry NY and CA, you're already 1\2 way home. One look at the electoral map will tell you that. Obama is strictly "the man of the big cities". Heartland America hates his guts, and everything he stands for. I won't repeat the anti-Obama slur I saw in a restroom in South Dakota in August- but trust me, I'll NEVER forget it.

 

Hoorta, I don't think anyone here is claiming that Obama's going to do a perfect job. Clearly, we're going to fuck some things up, that is the nature of politics. We just think the Dems are doing less to screw up the country than Republicans.

 

As for freedom. I agree. I'd trade away all the economic decisions Obama is making for a Gary Johnson presidency that would repeal the NDAA and Patriot Act. Those two are unconstitutional pieces of shit.

 

Heartland America is a bunch of ignorant racists (see Bunker/T's rants). I'd wager that a good majority of these heartland voters don't like them because they think he's going to take away their guns. Guess what? That's not happening. We may very well see restrictions on assault weapons in light of Aurora, but everyone is still going to be able to own hunting rifles and shotguns. Furthermore, the knock that I've seen a bunch of, that I really can't stand, is "WAAAHHHH, now I'm not gonna have a job when I graduate." Go read the fucking CBO's job projections.

 

The majority of this country doesn't like the Tea Party's politics, and it'd do the Republicans well to step away from the lunatic religious right. Romney easily won the WASP vote. They're not the majority anymore. Minorities, women, and young people are who got Obama elected. Old, white men aren't going to have as much say as they've had in previous elections, and I'm very much okay with that.

[Dste Ace]

In 1988, George H.W. Bush took 60% of the White vote and won in a landslide over

Dukakis with over 400 Electoral votes.

 

2 days ago Mitt Romney took 60% of the White vote and lost with

200 Electoral votes.

 

Like it or not, the Republican Party is going to have to find a way to attract

Blacks and Hispanics if they have any hopes of winning a future National election.

And the "Blacks are lazy and all on welfare and Hispanics are all here illegally and

need to go back where they came from" rants are definitely not going to help their cause.

[MLD Woody]

I'm not very religious and don't support gay marriage but support civil union. Don't know why gays have to cry about it when civil unions give them the same rights financially wise.

 

And I'll be completely honest, I'd rather stay in the orphanage than have two gay moms or two dads(as well as rather stay having two alcoholic parents or drug addict, which is even worse). It's just forcing an unnatural situation, you see gay animals too but they don't raise any animals, approximately 10% of them are gay just like humans.

 

... you'd rather be in an orphanage than have two parents that love you?

 

And now we're following the animal kingdom? You really want to do that everywhere?

[MLD Woody]

Woody- it's not a question of age. Well, maybe it is. Way back in 1970 our Woodstock Generation thought we had all the answers. Turns out we didn't. Hate to tell you in about 30-40 years, you're going to find out the same. LOL, when YOUR kids tell you you're full of shit.

 

LOL, I used to have the same argument with my uncle- 45 years ago. Was it Ben Franklin who said "those that would trade freedom for security will have neither." ? This is a lot less free country than it was in 1970. Hell, Homeland Security would have had me locked up for years with the stuff I had in my basement chem lab back then- and no, I wasn't making meth- just had all the ingredients to whip up some rocket fuel.

 

Ballpeen has a very valid point- the way our Electoral College is set up- you carry NY and CA, you're already 1\2 way home. One look at the electoral map will tell you that. Obama is strictly "the man of the big cities". Heartland America hates his guts, and everything he stands for. I won't repeat the anti-Obama slur I saw in a restroom in South Dakota in August- but trust me, I'll NEVER forget it.

 

I'm pretty sure age isn't going to make me religious, or make me thunks gays shouldn't be married, or make me borderline racist, or make me pro life, etc etc

 

I don't think I have all the answers, I never said I did. I do think a lit of what some posters on this board is crazy and I hope s majority of people would. And I'm guessing my generation would which means our kids will as well, cuz it would be hard to regress like that

 

 

But like some of you have said, I'm in college and you're older, clearly you're right and I'm wrong

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

 

Ballpeen has a very valid point- the way our Electoral College is set up- you carry NY and CA, you're already 1\2 way home. One look at the electoral map will tell you that. Obama is strictly "the man of the big cities". Heartland America hates his guts, and everything he stands for. I won't repeat the anti-Obama slur I saw in a restroom in South Dakota in August- but trust me, I'll NEVER forget it.

 

 

That's because 46 million people live in NYC and CA combined.

 

 

You win the places that have more people, you get more electoral votes. That just makes sense.

 

 

Heartland america can hate him all they want. "Brainland", the part of America that uses rationality and logic, will continue to like him.

 

 

 

I'm sure the slur had nothing to do with race, we all know how educated those in the "heartland" are.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Electoral College needs to go. Just outright who wins the most votes, period. That is fair to all concerned. Even Al Gore agrees.

[ballpeen]

True, but the majority of that population is in urban areas. The largest part of California isn't urban settings.

 

I understand that the numbers win. The problem is the numbers don't reflect the largest area of the country.

 

As I said earlier, take NYC out of NY and you probably have a red state. With that you tend to have people who rely on social services more than on their own resources.

 

Here is the biggest problem I have with the democratic party. I think it is fair to say that most people who receive some sort of federal or state assistance vote democrat by a large margin.

 

It's my opinion that if a person receives a certain percentage of their income from a program that hasn't been earned, such as social security, they shouldn't be allowed to vote because it's pretty clear they will vote for whoever isn't going to threaten their cash cow.

 

Voting should be a earned right. I know a good test. If you paid more in federal and state taxes than you received in some form of benefit over a 4 year election cycle, you have the right to vote on the national and state wide issues.

 

You would always be allowed to vote the local issues. That way their dumb choices impact just them and their neighbors and not people on the other side of the state or country.

[ballpeen]

Electoral College needs to go. Just outright who wins the most votes, period. That is fair to all concerned. Even Al Gore agrees.

 

 

No, that's not the answer. Then all one would have to do is cover the 10 largest cities and not worry about trying to lure voters in Kansas or Tennessee. The Electoral College is still very necessary.

[MLD Woody]

I vote for my IQ test system where the better you score the more your vote us worth. Must of the problems would be like world events, how our govt works, economics, etc.

[sadbrownsfan]

Electoral College needs to go. Just outright who wins the most votes, period. That is fair to all concerned. Even Al Gore agrees.

 

Then republicans would have a harder time getting elected than before. Electoral college allows smaller population states like Montana to have a slightly larger vote in the national election. If it was just a popular vote, then instead of states like Ohio and Florida being swing states, cities like NY, LA, and Chicago would be the major focus, these areas tend to vote democratic. In only 3 elections has the winner of electoral college vote not had the popular vote(most recently 2000).

[VaporTrail]

All I have to say is that I'm glad none of you decides who gets to vote.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Then republicans would have a harder time getting elected than before. Electoral college allows smaller population states like Montana to have a slightly larger vote in the national election. If it was just a popular vote, then instead of states like Ohio and Florida being swing states, cities like NY, LA, and Chicago would be the major focus, these areas tend to vote democratic. In only 3 elections has the winner of electoral college vote not had the popular vote(most recently 2000).

 

But the electoral college also have the right in some states to actually not vote the way the people wanted them to. There needs to be an overhaul of this process in my opinion.

[sadbrownsfan]

But the electoral college also have the right in some states to actually not vote the way the people wanted them to. There needs to be an overhaul of this process in my opinion.

 

very few times this has happened, and almost every state has laws against this. Also I don't think it has ever effected the outcome of an election.

[hoorta]

True, but the majority of that population is in urban areas. The largest part of California isn't urban settings.

 

I understand that the numbers win. The problem is the numbers don't reflect the largest area of the country.

 

As I said earlier, take NYC out of NY and you probably have a red state. With that you tend to have people who rely on social services more than on their own resources.

 

Here is the biggest problem I have with the democratic party. I think it is fair to say that most people who receive some sort of federal or state assistance vote democrat by a large margin.

 

It's my opinion that if a person receives a certain percentage of their income from a program that hasn't been earned, such as social security, they shouldn't be allowed to vote because it's pretty clear they will vote for whoever isn't going to threaten their cash cow.

 

Voting should be a earned right. I know a good test. If you paid more in federal and state taxes than you received in some form of benefit over a 4 year election cycle, you have the right to vote on the national and state wide issues.

 

You would always be allowed to vote the local issues. That way their dumb choices impact just them and their neighbors and not people on the other side of the state or country.

 

& this is why Big Government folks about have a lock on elections. When more people get government checks than people paying in, it's over Grover. Was it Ben Franklin who said (more or less) "Any democracy is doomed when the populace discovers they can vote themselves money out of the common purse."

 

Too bad you can't legislate an intelligence test in order to vote. When I read people voted for Obama because he was more "likeable" than Romney- HURL. Guess I forgot about the Bill Clinton Cult of Personality. Doesn't matter anymore to the lowest common denominator what your politics are- just look good.