U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread

Obama or McCain/Democrat or Republican..you decide

  • McCain

    Votes: 14 7.5%
  • Obama

    Votes: 173 92.5%

  • Total voters
    187
  • Poll closed .
btw Cali Red....please stop denying that your party is the one that always tries to suppress votes....translate that as stealing and flipping votes.....so were you all indignant abut what Blackwell did in Ohio?

I'm sure not...because it helped your party win....you have an agenda...end off..
 
btw Cali Red....please stop denying that your party is the one that always tries to suppress votes....translate that as stealing and flipping votes.....so were you all indignant abut what Blackwell did in Ohio?

I'm sure not...because it helped your party win....you have an agenda...end off..

:lol: A bit rich don't you think?
 
Crying out loud, this Proposition 8 thing is getting some heated reactions. Does it overturn civil partnerships or gay marriage?

Gay marriage - which is without doubt the most ludicrous concept that's ever been dreamt up.

Haven't they gone far enough already, one would hope they'd let our country retain a modicum of self respect and dignity, but seemingly not.
 
Gay marriage - which is without doubt the most ludicrous concept that's ever been dreamt up.

Haven't they gone far enough already, one would hope they'd let our country retain a modicum of self respect and dignity, but seemingly not.

Oh, do shut up.
 
btw Cali Red....please stop denying that your party is the one that always tries to suppress votes....translate that as stealing and flipping votes.....so were you all indignant abut what Blackwell did in Ohio?

I'm sure not...because it helped your party win....you have an agenda...end off..

Not my party. I want everyone to vote but I'll give you the point that lower turn out does help the repubs. It's also not as if the demos are so fecking high and mighty that they don't attempt the same shit.

It might be a comparison, but there is no way what Bush and Cheney did was anywhere near the level of what McCarthy did, not in any sort of way

I think the McCarthy era was also the worst but Bush's era is second. There is no doubt that rights have been trampled on during the war on terror.

Shockingly stupid comment. Their rights were taken away. They are angry. The "bigots" would be the people who took away their rights because of their religious beliefs. The Mormons and their like deserve any horrible shit that is coming their way.

"Lost fair and square" is the most fecking retarded comment to stripping away people's right's ive ever heard of. Remember when blacks lost their rights to be free fair and square? They should have just accepted it and moved on.


This would be a right given them by bench legislation though right? And again, I'm not opposed to gay marriage.

On this note, how has this not reached the Supreme Court yet? Or has it?
 
This would be a right given them by bench legislation though right? And again, I'm not opposed to gay marriage.

On this note, how has this not reached the Supreme Court yet? Or has it?

No, actually. The Constitution gave them the right, not the court.

The Constitution was then altered by religious bigots.

No, it has not gone to the supreme court.
 
Gay marriage - which is without doubt the most ludicrous concept that's ever been dreamt up.

Haven't they gone far enough already, one would hope they'd let our country retain a modicum of self respect and dignity, but seemingly not.

an utterly stupid close minded comment that I would expect from a loonie right Republican...

what about the modicum of respect and dignity of these people who just want their way of life respected....


don't try and answer that.....your little brain will explode....
 
I think conservative columnist David Brooks makes a very convincing case for legalizing gay marriage. Not as an individual right, but as a means of drawing gay people more deeply into a culture of commitment and domestication - a culture that is under attack in all corners of our society, and whose erosion contributes to a multitude of social and spiritual ills.


The power of marriage
New York Times
November 22, 2003

Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations. But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin. Few of us work as hard at the vocation of marriage as we should. But marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together, fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come to the point when they can say to each other: ''Love you? I am you.''

Today marriage is in crisis. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Worse, in some circles, marriage is not even expected. Men and women shack up for a while, produce children and then float off to shack up with someone else. Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency. Today, individual choice is held up as the highest value: choice of lifestyles, choice of identities, choice of cellphone rate plans. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but the culture of contingency means that the marriage bond, which is supposed to be a sacred vow till death do us part, is now more likely to be seen as an easily canceled contract.

Men are more likely to want to trade up, when a younger trophy wife comes along. Men and women are quicker to opt out of marriages, even marriages that are not fatally flawed, when their ''needs'' don't seem to be met at that moment. Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity -- except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a ''partner,'' a word that reeks of contingency.

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work. Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn't be in crisis. In truth, it's moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that ''domesticates'' all people.

Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We're moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: ''Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.''

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote. Marriage is not voting. It's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

Link
 
Gay marriage - which is without doubt the most ludicrous concept that's ever been dreamt up.

Haven't they gone far enough already, one would hope they'd let our country retain a modicum of self respect and dignity, but seemingly not.

I completely agree, soon people are going to start marrying animals I really expect this to happen within my lifetime.
 
Why would you be against gay marriage? Something that (presumably) effects you not at all?

If it is for religious reasons then are you against civil marriages and marriages undertaken within other faiths?

Or do you just hate poofs? quite possible since you seem to be suggesting an equivalency between gays and animals.
 
It changing the fundamental definition of the word marriage, civil unions are fine and they should be allowed to do that, but no marriage because it is a church issue imo. Since Prop 8 passed they have been the ones who are biggots they beat up some 15 year old girl for being a Mormon, it was voted for and they lost they should get over it. I mean this is a democracy and the democratic process went through here.

The animal comparison was a bit much, but if things keep going this way who knows. Also whats wrong with polygamy or polyandry then, it's not as if those people are hurting anybody why not just let them live.(aside from some sick people who are marrying underage woman)
 
The animal comparison was a bit much
Uh, yeah. I believe it is now widely accepted within the medical community that sexual orientation is something that you are, for the most part, born with. For most gay people it is not a lifestyle choice. And comparing someone who wants a long-term loving relationship with an adult of the same sex to some idiot who fecks sheep or dogs is more than a bit much. It's disgusting, and I think you can do better than that.
 
an utterly stupid close minded comment that I would expect from a loonie right Republican...

what about the modicum of respect and dignity of these people who just want their way of life respected....


don't try and answer that.....your little brain will explode....

That's what civil partnerships are for. Why do they feel the need to push the issue a step further?

Society is already in a big enough mess without young people growing up thinking that two gay people forming a marriage is the norm.

The legislation got rejected in California of all places so I think there's very little to worry about anyway.
 
That's what civil partnerships are for. Why do they feel the need to push the issue a step further?

Society is already in a big enough mess without young people growing up thinking that two gay people forming a marriage is the norm.

The legislation got rejected in California of all places so I think there's very little to worry about anyway.

OK, you will have to explain this matter to me. Gay people can register a civil partnership in California already then?

Therefore I assume that you have no problem with gay people having the right to a civil partnership in the US ?

How is 'gay marriage' different from a civil partnership though? Presumably gay people are not allowed to get married in churches?
 
That's what civil partnerships are for. Why do they feel the need to push the issue a step further?

Because they may feel that they are being discriminated against. There are a significant number of ways in which civil partnerships do not offer the same legal status as marriage.

Society is already in a big enough mess without young people growing up thinking that two gay people forming a marriage is the norm.

What has 'the norm' got to do with anything? What matters is the right to be treated equally before the law.
 
How is 'gay marriage' different from a civil partnership though? Presumably gay people are not allowed to get married in churches?

From a quick scoot around the Web, basically marriages are recognised across state boundaries with all the legal extras that entails, while civil unions are not. ie you could not sponsor a relative to immigrate if in a civil union, but you can if married.

That kind of thing.
 
Well until the RedCafe.net forum becomes a democrat/liberals only site, it's not far off at the moment to be fair, I shall continue to yap away.

It's nothing to do with your beliefs, it has everything to do with your posturing.
 
Well until the RedCafe.net forum becomes a democrat/liberals only site, it's not far off at the moment to be fair, I shall continue to yap away.

I kind of like debating with you.

Even though it's like running into a brick wall of stupid.

Although I'm guessing you are so hyper partisan that you'd be happy if this was a republican/conservative site only. Because clearly, that way is the only way. :wenger::wenger:

I know plenty of progressive thinking, open minded conservatives that would shudder if they read some of the stuff you said.

As for your comments about gays it's rather despicable. You are saying that a group of people should be without the same basic rights given to all other citizens. If you had your way you'd probably round them all up into 'work camps' to boot, not that you'd ever admit that.

Even if all gays get is a civil union or w/e it's called. It should provide all the same legal ties as marriage does, otherwise it is discrimination.
 
I kind of like debating with you.

Even though it's like running into a brick wall of stupid.

Although I'm guessing you are so hyper partisan that you'd be happy if this was a republican/conservative site only. Because clearly, that way is the only way. :wenger::wenger:

I know plenty of progressive thinking, open minded conservatives that would shudder if they read some of the stuff you said.

As for your comments about gays it's rather despicable. You are saying that a group of people should be without the same basic rights given to all other citizens. If you had your way you'd probably round them all up into 'work camps' to boot, not that you'd ever admit that.

Even if all gays get is a civil union or w/e it's called. It should provide all the same legal ties as marriage does, otherwise it is discrimination.

Pffft. A typical namby pampy idea that only a liberal could dream up.

Concentration camps more like, where you'd be able to beat ''it'' out of them good and proper.*





* Disclaimer - Don't try this at home kids.
 
That's what civil partnerships are for. Why do they feel the need to push the issue a step further?

Society is already in a big enough mess without young people growing up thinking that two gay people forming a marriage is the norm.

The legislation got rejected in California of all places so I think there's very little to worry about anyway.

step back and think about what you have posted...with an open mind...I realise that will be a strecth for a Republican...but give it a try anyways.....
 
step back and think about what you have posted...with an open mind...I realise that will be a strecth for a Republican...but give it a try anyways.....

Oh I have, so did the people of California where it got rejected.

We have dramatically different values so it should be no surprise that we'll never agree on this issue, or any issue by looks of it.
 
step back and think about what you have posted...with an open mind...I realise that will be a strecth for a Republican...but give it a try anyways.....
No, now he's just on the wind-up. He's had his ass kicked so many times in this thread, and realizes that he has no chance of winning an argument because he can't string more than twenty words together in any attempt to form a cohesive line of reasoning. But if he can say something outlandish and offend someone...by gum that's a victory! An honest to god moral victory, kind of like if Stoke had kicked Ronaldo in the balls at the end of the match Saturday. Still would have had their asses handed to them 5-0, and they're still barely fit to be on the same pitch as United. But hee hee hee, we sure showed that prick! He still beat us single-handedly, but you don't expect us to compete with them in footballing terms, do you? Surely not.

So bravo, TWITT! An excellent strategy, and it has paid off. Today you're a winner, yayyyyyyy!
 
And do let us know if we can help you with the computer problems you've been having, I heard you've had a hard time with tech support people. The Caf will is always here for you, because we're all friends on the Caf. You've got friends, yayyyyyyyyy!



 
No, now he's just on the wind-up. He's had his ass kicked so many times in this thread, and realizes that he has no chance of winning an argument because he can't string more than twenty words together in any attempt to form a cohesive line of reasoning. But if he can say something outlandish and offend someone...by gum that's a victory! An honest to god moral victory, kind of like if Stoke had kicked Ronaldo in the balls at the end of the match Saturday. Still would have had their asses handed to them 5-0, and they're still barely fit to be on the same pitch as United. But hee hee hee, we sure showed that prick! He still beat us single-handedly, but you don't expect us to compete with them in footballing terms, do you? Surely not.

So bravo, TWITT! An excellent strategy, and it has paid off. Today you're a winner, yayyyy!

The post you're referring to wasn't a wind up in any way shape or form, I oppose gay marriage and sadly for the likes of you, the majority of Americans also oppose it.

The other post clearly was a wind up, after all I was being accused of wanting to round up gays and put them in work camps. That accusation really didn't warrant a sensible reply.
 
And do let us know if we can help you with the computer problems you've been having, I heard you've had a hard time with tech support people. The Caf will is always here for you, because we're all friends on the Caf. You've got friends, yayyyyyyyyy!





That's a poor effort for you Chris. Your one redeeming feature is that you can be mildly amusing at times.
 
By the way, if you can turn your new little "tactic" into a victory with your last attempt to talk utter shite, about ACORN yesterday, I'll send you a shiny new penny in the mail. Because as I mentioned, we're all friends here.

Yayyyyyyyy!
 
It changing the fundamental definition of the word marriage, civil unions are fine and they should be allowed to do that, but no marriage because it is a church issue imo. Since Prop 8 passed they have been the ones who are biggots they beat up some 15 year old girl for being a Mormon, it was voted for and they lost they should get over it. I mean this is a democracy and the democratic process went through here.

The animal comparison was a bit much, but if things keep going this way who knows. Also whats wrong with polygamy or polyandry then, it's not as if those people are hurting anybody why not just let them live.(aside from some sick people who are marrying underage woman)

marriage is a legal issue and not one of the church. they are legally recognized unions. in case you didn't notice, the Government of the United States of America is a secular one.

Polygamy is illegal in the US. Mormons in Utah get away with it by having only one legal marriage, their other wives are "wed" in religious ceremonies that have no legal significance, at least that's how I understand it to be.