Mitt Romney Challenged by Gay Veteran

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

I'm pretty impressed by the discussion that has been sparked over a basic conservative stance. Granted the stance is hateful, prejudiced, primitive, and generally detestable but I thought that all of us educated people here could understand that it was simply the usual, heartless, uneducated, bigotry of the republican party then sigh and move on like we must always do whenever our nose is rubbed in the reality of the public idiocy.

Seekster:

Not every place in California is solid blue but really the state itself is overall a solid blue state because of place like Los Angeles and San Francisco. There are way too many liberals in those cities.

And what is the threshold at which a population of X becomes "too large"?

Seekster:

conflictofinterests:

Seekster:
SNIP
Same-sex marriage is largely unnecessary for those seeking gay rights.
SNIP

I respectfully disagree. While civil unions are an option for homosexuals trying to spend their lives together, it's certainly not equal in terms of rights and protections afforded to marriage. In fact, it's a rather paltry consolance, in the same way the public options provided under the Jim Crow laws were.

This PDF sums up the differences rather succinctly:
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf

Civil Unions arent just for homosexuals you know. I would hope to see the trend in France repeated here with heterosexuals also entering into a civil union if they dont want to marry or don't want to marry right away.

Just remember, you are either fighting to get the rights associated with marriage or you fighting over an issue of grammar. Experience has led me to believe that rights are the important thing here.

On a side note is my internet connection acting up or are they changing the forum appearance because I refreshed and suddenly the text, color, and general format of the forum looks different now.

New look escapist. There's an article about it on the front page. It look like ass that someone threw together in 10 minutes on geocities.

I hate how the conservatives are only appealing to Right wing Tea baggers from the seems of it. Any Independent can see that the whole GOP field is way to religious and way to devoted to the original constitution. Sure they will take all the conservative votes but the independents might not be so fast to act. I mean a service member was boo'd for being gay in a debate and none of them even cared. They all have similar "anti-gay" views. If this is the so called "land of the free" then shouldn't people all be free? regardless of sexual orientation, or is this just the land of the free to those who follow Christianity and are devoted to god. Hell every other group gets some discrimination, Gay, Islamist, Atheist, what ever. If you are not christian then it seems like you just don't get the fair treatment they do.

Vausch:

Really, Mitt? "At the time the constitution was written" means nothing. By that time, black people and women were property, and it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person. Is that another definition you want to go by?

I'm pretty sure that's exactly how the base feels.

It's getting to the point where it seems you and the other GOP candidates are trying to fail.

You mean the same Republicans pandering to the base who will boo a soldier simply for being gay?

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

Not every place in California is solid blue but really the state itself is overall a solid blue state because of place like Los Angeles and San Francisco. There are way too many liberals in those cities.

And what is the threshold at which a population of X becomes "too large"?

The point at which it becomes impossible to easily distinguish between Los Angeles and a bowl of Granola.

brotherofaguy:

Seekster:

conflictofinterests:

I respectfully disagree. While civil unions are an option for homosexuals trying to spend their lives together, it's certainly not equal in terms of rights and protections afforded to marriage. In fact, it's a rather paltry consolance, in the same way the public options provided under the Jim Crow laws were.

This PDF sums up the differences rather succinctly:
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf

Civil Unions arent just for homosexuals you know. I would hope to see the trend in France repeated here with heterosexuals also entering into a civil union if they dont want to marry or don't want to marry right away.

Just remember, you are either fighting to get the rights associated with marriage or you fighting over an issue of grammar. Experience has led me to believe that rights are the important thing here.

On a side note is my internet connection acting up or are they changing the forum appearance because I refreshed and suddenly the text, color, and general format of the forum looks different now.

New look escapist. There's an article about it on the front page. It look like ass that someone threw together in 10 minutes on geocities.

Damn right, I actually thought most of the site didnt load or just didn't load properly at first. Boo I don't like change! ^_^

All of the Republican candidates are jokes. It doesn't matter which one that is picked, Barack Obama will absolutely humiliate them before the first votes come in.

It doesn't matter why you hate Obama, he's got everything these guys don't: intelligence, charisma, devotion, idealism. Every time one of these candidates appears in public they do something to embarrass themselves. At first I felt contempt, but now I'm like Frodo watching Gollum: I can't hate these people because they're so sad and pathetic that they can't even see it, which is even more tragic.

Has America really become so apathetic and cynical that it would rather parade these people around like flag-waving monkeys, or circus freak shows, than focus on bettering itself? Would it rather wallow and take pride in its flaws than accept it needs help? When someone is struggling, when they're suffering, we tell them it's okay to ask for help, that you CAN reach out. Pride isn't as important as dignity. We want to help.

Please.

Just ask.

Seekster:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Seekster:

Being heterosexual has nothing to do with being reasonable and not letting emotion rule your thinking.

I'm not being reasonable? Tell me, what changes if tomorrow you woke up and this country had same sex marriages legal everywhere? Nothing changes for you or anyone else. So why deny homosexuals the right to marry? Going out of your way to oppose it is far more unreasonable.

Since when does "I would vote against it if it came up but if it was approved I wouldnt go out of my way to repeal it" count as going out of my way to oppose it? I would rather marriage be defined traditionally in this country but if the people of this country vote to have the definition changed I must live with that, that is Democracy.

That second part was directed at Republicans, not you. Sorry for not clarifying. I still want to know how I am being unreasonable.

The gay marriage debate is something that has completed perplexed me ever since I first heard about it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the people who are against gay marriage usually say its unholy and that god is against it. I have a few problems with this:

1) How do you truly now that god believes that? You can quote the bible all you want, but the fact is that it's just a man-made book that has been translated and edited thousands of times throughout history so who says someone hadn't changed part of it to fit their views.

2) The Christian god is supposed to be all-loving (at least that's what I've been taught) so why would he have a prejedice against a certain group of people?

3) Using the Bible to justify your ideas does not autmoatically make you in the right. For example, in the years leading up to the Civil War, the South used biblical arguments (among other things) to justify slavery.

4) Even if these first three arguments don't matter to someone who's against gay marriage, they still shouldn't be able to make laws against it because of the founding principles of the United States government. Using religious reasons to justify why something should be a law goes against concept of seperation of church and state that was put into the Constitution. Another priniciple that should be brought up is religious freedom. Christianity is definitely the majority religion in the US, but it is not the only one. Even with that said not all Christians believe the same thing, so this seems to be someone trying to forcefully push their religious ideals on people who may not believe in them.

I'm not sure how other people feel about what I've stated so if I've offended anyone, I appolagize

It says nothing in the constitution about marriage. I'm a constitutionalist, and all these religious-right people who call themselves the same and use it to excuse their bigotry make me sick. I'm a constitutionalist on a pro-freedom stance. They use constitutionalism to excuse their close minded bigotry.

I already wasn't a huge fan of Romney, but when I read this story, I lost even more respect for him. This whole anti-gay bigotry is one of the reasons I don't consider myself a republican anymore.

Hey guys, remember when a marriage was just an exchange of property in order to get rid of a member of your family that wasn't going to do physical labor for you? What ever happened to that? I mean, what's with 50% of people getting married being in love and stuff? Just live together and be happy.

I the US marriage gets you 2 things: 1- tax break. 2- one piece of mail for the two of you

I say we get rid of #1 and no one will care :)

BoredDragon:

3) Using the Bible to justify your ideas does not autmoatically make you in the right. For example, in the years leading up to the Civil War, the South used biblical arguments (among other things) to justify slavery.

And now pretend it didn't happen, and now use similar arguments against gay marriage. Isn't it funny how that ends up working?

I find it funny how somebody who would be for less government and more freedom (supposedly) is against the freedom to marry the person(s) you please

Seekster, what do you base your movement against same sex marriage on?

Religious teachings? Because I was under the impression that we were not the judges of others, that the job of that went to God, and Jesus Christ. That we are to love our fellow man, no matter what.

Just a definition? If your argument is that 'Oh its just a definition they're arguing about', then why are you pitching such a fit over it? Its a definition for pete's sake, who cares?

And there is a reason people would want it to be a full blooded marriage.

Imagine, as a young child, you are told of the wonders of something spectacularly romantic. Something that is shared with people who truly love one another, and would do anything for the other.

You're told this in every single way. Stories, movies, fairy tales, stories of kingdoms in a faraway magical land. As a young child you fantasize often about what it is like to be in this relationship. To say that you and your beloved are in such love.

But one day, you realize that you're different somehow. You don't understand how. You don't know why. But you are. You find someone though, you find someone whom you *love*. Dearly. You would do anything for them, and they for you.

But everyone else doesn't want you two together! They state that it is wrong, that it is evil. Some even state they're fine with you being together, but that relationship? It is impossible. The excuses are many, the justifications are in the multitudes, but they generally all boil down to one point. "You are different, and we want nothing to do with you, even using the same term as you."

You fight for a while...but ultimately give in...You acquiesce to their silly 'alternate term' ..Which is just silly, and holds none of the romantic connotations that you have been exposed too all your life. ... After all, if a boy loves a girl, why can't you have a 'civil union', just like all the other people out there, instead of this silly 'marriage'?

(Oh snap, I just M. Night Shyamalan'd your asses.)

BoredDragon:
1) How do you truly now that god believes that? You can quote the bible all you want, but the fact is that it's just a man-made book that has been translated and edited thousands of times throughout history so who says someone hadn't changed part of it to fit their views.

2) The Christian god is supposed to be all-loving (at least that's what I've been taught) so why would he have a prejedice against a certain group of people?

All of this right here. I was raised Maronite Catholic... but was never like these crazy Right Wing Christians that hide behind the Bible, we all had the general consensus that you should love and respect your fellow man regardless of race, creed, or orientation.

These days, I'm an Agnostic Atheist, I don't need some man-made fairy tale book and the fear of an invisible man in the sky to live a happy and productive life. There is logical right and wrong in this world, something more people need to understand better. You don't steal from your neighbor because it's wrong, not because some omnipotent father figure in the clouds "told" you not to. You don't ridicule others for being different just because you don't agree with something they can't help being and you don't deny them the same human rights as you.

I have a cousin that's gay, we don't love him any less. It doesn't dictate the quality of his character. My grandfather was gay, had to marry a woman to hide it and had two children (my dad and his sister) with her and we're talking the 1940s-1950s when it was super super taboo.

Probably unless you're Hindu, you only have one life in this existence and you should do your best to not make it miserable for others while you're here. I took away the best, most practical and logical lesson from my more religion-filled upbringing: "Do unto others and you would have them do unto you." That transcends ANY belief.

I will accept the term "civil union" as a substitute for "marriage" when everyone else accepts whatever term I come with as a substitute for "citzenship" for women, children and immigrants. Now if you'll excuse me I have to wash my toga.

SnakeoilSage:
Has America really become so apathetic and cynical that it would rather parade these people around like flag-waving monkeys, or circus freak shows, than focus on bettering itself? Would it rather wallow and take pride in its flaws than accept it needs help? When someone is struggling, when they're suffering, we tell them it's okay to ask for help, that you CAN reach out. Pride isn't as important as dignity. We want to help.

Sounds like commie talk to me

Vausch:

"No, actually I think at the time the Constitution was written it was pretty clear marriage was between a man and a woman," Romney said, just as one of his campaign aides chimed in that they had "to get going" to another Fox interview.

Full story: http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/former-mass-governor-had-uncomfortable-moment-diner-hampshire-153559334.html

Really, Mitt? "At the time the constitution was written" means nothing. By that time, black people and women were property, and it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person. Is that another definition you want to go by? The constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage, anywhere. It's getting to the point where it seems you and the other GOP candidates are trying to fail.

Yeah, that constitution defence was WEAK SAUCE! Shame he couldn't have been caught out on it at the time.

Though mainly the Constitution was not defined by the entire absolute status of American society in the 1780's but rather by the Constitution itself. It did EXPLICITLY not ground itself in the norms of the day. The norms of the day were recent colonial rule!

But the problem with any GOP candidate is if they ever support gay-marriage they will lose FAR more votes than they will gain considering their conservative basing. That's not excuse though.

As much as I would like to gloat even in the UK we don't have "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" only "Civil Partnerships" that have all the rights of marriage except the name, and I believe that is something even the Republicans in America are in favour of (I remember John McCain went on Ellen DeGeneres Show to argue that) but the other side of the argument refuse to accept, they want MARRIAGE (not by any other name) an option for same-sex couples and nothing in between.

So, I'm sensing some inflexibility here.

I recommend in America that the liberals/progressives accept Civil Partnerships for now, then once the Republicans have gotten over the "shock" of men talking about their husbands and women introducing their wife, then you can quietly upgrade it to marriage and no one will care. Thin end of the wedge.

You don't have to do EVERYTHING in one go! Civil-partnerships will soften up the electorate to accept gay marriage.

Dryk:
I will accept the term "civil union" as a substitute for "marriage" when everyone else accepts whatever term I come with as a substitute for "citzenship" for women, children and immigrants. Now if you'll excuse me I have to wash my toga.

SnakeoilSage:
Has America really become so apathetic and cynical that it would rather parade these people around like flag-waving monkeys, or circus freak shows, than focus on bettering itself? Would it rather wallow and take pride in its flaws than accept it needs help? When someone is struggling, when they're suffering, we tell them it's okay to ask for help, that you CAN reach out. Pride isn't as important as dignity. We want to help.

Sounds like commie talk to me

Nothing you just said is relevant to the 21st Century.

jedizero:
Seekster, what do you base your movement against same sex marriage on?

Religious teachings? Because I was under the impression that we were not the judges of others, that the job of that went to God, and Jesus Christ. That we are to love our fellow man, no matter what.

Just a definition? If your argument is that 'Oh its just a definition they're arguing about', then why are you pitching such a fit over it? Its a definition for pete's sake, who cares?

And there is a reason people would want it to be a full blooded marriage.

Imagine, as a young child, you are told of the wonders of something spectacularly romantic. Something that is shared with people who truly love one another, and would do anything for the other.

You're told this in every single way. Stories, movies, fairy tales, stories of kingdoms in a faraway magical land. As a young child you fantasize often about what it is like to be in this relationship. To say that you and your beloved are in such love.

But one day, you realize that you're different somehow. You don't understand how. You don't know why. But you are. You find someone though, you find someone whom you *love*. Dearly. You would do anything for them, and they for you.

But everyone else doesn't want you two together! They state that it is wrong, that it is evil. Some even state they're fine with you being together, but that relationship? It is impossible. The excuses are many, the justifications are in the multitudes, but they generally all boil down to one point. "You are different, and we want nothing to do with you, even using the same term as you."

You fight for a while...but ultimately give in...You acquiesce to their silly 'alternate term' ..Which is just silly, and holds none of the romantic connotations that you have been exposed too all your life. ... After all, if a boy loves a girl, why can't you have a 'civil union', just like all the other people out there, instead of this silly 'marriage'?

(Oh snap, I just M. Night Shyamalan'd your asses.)

Well why is it that British homosexuals are almost completely fine with having merely Civil Partnerships?

Can it be that us Brits aren't as romantic as Americans?!?

Civil Partnership it is still Husband and Wife, every legal right is the same only the union is called "Civil Partnership" not marriage. You CAN hold a Partnership in a church but you can't force a church to accept it.

Could it possibly be because our heir to the throne, Prince Charles was in a similar predicament of being unable to marry his love but not of the gay variety, he was in love with a Catholic woman and as heir to the English Throne which is ALSO the head of the Church of England, that was a huge problem as the legality of the monarchy is based on an extremely anti-papist ideology. It is forbidden for a monarch to be married to a catholic and an heir is automatically denied ascendency if they marry a catholic.

But the wording is particular. Marriage.

Price Charles is in a Civil Partnership with his Wife Camilla and can still be heir to the throne.

That's the bullshit Brits STILL have to deal with. 500 year old laws against the nefarious papists!

Civil Unions are quite popular with male-female couples in the UK. They are cheaper and often for couples who are unsure about religion they can get "married" in a non-religious location. Castles are popular, rented out in the summer, bring in a load of caterers, get married in the nice garden. No mention of the "G-word" (that's "God" by the way) at all. And technically, no "marriage" either.

Vausch:
It's getting to the point where it seems you and the other GOP candidates are trying to fail.

Four of the republican candidates have gone on record as saying they do not believe in evolution.

(And Mitt himself was a notorious corporate raider in the 80s, personally responsible for the elimination of thousands of jobs in order to increase the profits of the corporations his group took over, most of which collapsed into bankruptcy shortly after being resold.

Even if Mitt didn't have to contend with his extremely moderate history, which he does, no matter how hard he tries to deny that part of his life, he still has to contend with that. The whole 'this guy's job was literally to eliminate jobs, thoughout the 80s' thing.

And then there was that campaign ad Romney ran wherein he got caught out deliberately misquoting the president to make him look bad, which he referred to as 'sauce for the gander,' an expression that meant absolutely nothing given the context.

Obama has already said that for his campaign ads, he's just going to run clips of the Republican debates.

He's going to win by default, basically.)

The Gentleman:

MoNKeyYy:

Katatori-kun:

The sad thing is, Romney is supposed to be the one we're expected to take seriously. He's the straight man (pun intended) who is supposed to look better when compared to all the loonies competing with him for his party's nomination.

Ron Paul? Has he done anything crazy, because he's my favourite one by far. The only thing about him I don't like is that he opposes health care. Besides that he's

-Pro Freedom (real freedom, libertarian freedom, no this wishy washy "freedom when it's convenient crap)
-Anti Patriot Act
-In favor of secularism
-Anti War
and various others

It makes me sad that he hasn't gotten more consideration, but I guess crazy gets press and press gets votes.

OT: Mehh. This seems pretty sensationalist. They both clearly have agendas and we all already knew ol' Mitt's a wamker so I fail to see the point.

Anyone who wants to get rid of major government departments such as FEMA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerse, etc. is not going to be taken seriously. Systematic destruction of the federal government serves no one.

There's also that rather 'unfortunate' newsletter for which he was editor which espoused all manner of blatantly racist viewpoints.
Of course Paul denies any involvement. It is all rather suspect, however. Although I guess we can't expect the editor to keep track of what is written in his own newsletter, can we?

Oh, and actually, Paul is stated as saying that he does not find any basis for the separation of church and state. He's very much opposed to the secularisation of America.

OT: Romney is a berk. And a political flip-flopper. Simply compare his approach to abortion at the time when he ran for governor of Massachusetts to his stance in his current presidential candidacy.
I find all the Republican candidates to be little more than different intensities of "do not want". Obama may not have managed to fulfill all the lofty promises of his campaign (but honestly, who really expected him to?), but in spite of the GOP's systematic attacks on any proposed legislation, he's managed to pass some major bills, including general health care; expanding the definition of hate crime to include gender identity, sexuality etc; the Lily Ledbetter act for equal pay and repealing DADT.

- In spite of his faults, I'd pick Obama over any of those clowns every single time.

LiquidGrape:

There's also that rather 'unfortunate' newsletter for which he was editor which espoused all manner of blatantly racist viewpoints.
Of course Paul denies any involvement. It is all rather suspect, however. I mean, we can't expect the editor to keep track of what is written in his own newsletter, can we?

At least one such incident was in the form of an editorial. So not only can't we expect an editor to to keep track of what's written in his own newsletter, we can't expect him to keep track of what are supposed to be his own words.

Not to mention he takes money from racist groups.

Oh, and actually, Paul is stated as saying that he does not find any basis for the separation of church and state. He's very much opposed to the secularisation of America.

And that's not the only place he's selectively a Constitutionalist.

I'm also not sure I'd want a guy who preaches about the "New World Order" to be in charge of the country.

Treblaine:

Well why is it that British homosexuals are almost completely fine with having merely Civil Partnerships?

Can it be that us Brits aren't as romantic as Americans?!?

Whoa whoa whoa, I was just trying to make a point. If you are fine with it being called civil partnerships, that's perfectly fine. But for people who want to be able to say they're married, more power to them. I honestly don't give a rats ass either way.

People should be free to do what they want, as long as nobody is harmed in the process.

What is wrong with that?

The answer to all the problems in this thread is simple. If you like what he said like I did then vote for him. If you don't like what he said then don't vote for him.

Seekster:
Not every place in California is solid blue but really the state itself is overall a solid blue state because of place like Los Angeles and San Francisco. There are way too many liberals in those cities.

And that's why California had a Republican in charge and voted for Republican presidential candidates several times in the past? And even when the Democratic presidential candidate won, there was a sizeable number who voted for the Republican? Obviously their votes are lost due to your winner-takes-all voting system, but I think you're severely overestimating the association of California as a whole to the Democratic party.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Really. In America? Wow. Elaborate, please. A news story would be nice too.

And you still haven't told us why Romney is not entitled to his opinion. Are you saying that he's wrong, and/or not entitled to his opinion? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is for everyone, even if you don't agree.

Now, are you trying to accuse Romney of "hate speech" for expressing his personal views? That'd be a stretch too.

You're right Romney is entitled to his opinion, unfortunately for him his opinion seriously harms the rights of others, where as the old veteran's opinion doesn't harm anyone in the slightest.

As a Presidential candidate this does matter as he would try to enact his opinion into law, his opinion has the potential to infringe upon the rights of millions, so in this context, his opinion is wrong and he is wrong to have it.

lovest harding:

Comando96:

That in mind I'd give them equal rights in all but name so it would be called a Civil Union or Civil Partnership instead of marriage to work around the pathetic marriage protected term argument and give them the same rights but with a different name. Me being pragmatic.

No offense to your point and I'm not trying to argue, I'm honestly curious: How is that true equality?
And if a name is just a name (which is a commonly used excuse for giving gay couples the terms civil union or partnership instead of marriage) and gay people shouldn't care if they get the term marriage or not, why are people who are against marriage equality so set to keep marriage between a man and a woman and give gay couples civil union or civil partnership?

I'm sorry if someone else has asked this, but I just wanted to know.

Because its just a word.

Practically give them the same rights and if they want a name change then do that later once they have practical equality.
If as a Couple they have the same rights as a married couple then they have climbed the biggest hurdle other than violence from their neighbors.

If your an idealist you'll require it to be marriage.
If your a pragmatist then you'll give it a different name if more people would benefit than if you required the word marriage.

I'll also add that I'm autistic and logical thinking more than emotive thinking is what I do. If the hurdle is a word then throw the word a way >.>
Logic tends to lead you to be a pragmatist.

Comando96:

Practically give them the same rights and if they want a name change then do that later once they have practical equality.
If as a Couple they have the same rights as a married couple then they have climbed the biggest hurdle other than violence from their neighbors.

If your an idealist you'll require it to be marriage.
If your a pragmatist then you'll give it a different name if more people would benefit than if you required the word marriage.

The issue here is that people as a whole are not logical, and if a term like "marriage", which has been around for a very long time, and has loads and loads of cultural baggage, is only applied to one set of relationships, then those relationships will have the full weight of that cultural baggage behind their legitimacy in the public eye. Relationships that are described using a newer term like "civil partnership" will still be seen as somewhat illegitimate. We have to remember that words have power, and that the LGBT rights movement is about more than government recognition. The eventual goal is broad acceptance in the public mind, in which effort government is not the sole player. Names have power, as about ninety bajillion fantasy series will attest, and calling something by a particular name loads it with all sorts of connotations.

David Savage:
The issue here is that people as a whole are not logical, and if a term like "marriage", which has been around for a very long time, and has loads and loads of cultural baggage, is only applied to one set of relationships, then those relationships will have the full weight of that cultural baggage behind their legitimacy in the public eye. Relationships that are described using a newer term like "civil partnership" will still be seen as somewhat illegitimate. We have to remember that words have power, and that the LGBT rights movement is about more than government recognition. The eventual goal is broad acceptance in the public mind, in which effort government is not the sole player. Names have power, as about ninety bajillion fantasy series will attest, and calling something by a particular name loads it with all sorts of connotations.

Really?

In the UK my parents got a Civil Union 30 years ago (They signed a bit of paper in a registration office, not doing any stuff before God in a church). They still call it marriage and frankly no body gives a shit. Its a legal term and that's all. Its easier to fool people than the word marriage. However everyone still calls it marriage. My parents are married as far as anyone gives a shit.

If every gay couple goes around called it marriage then watch how fast it will change xD

Skeleon:

Seekster:
Not every place in California is solid blue but really the state itself is overall a solid blue state because of place like Los Angeles and San Francisco. There are way too many liberals in those cities.

And that's why California had a Republican in charge and voted for Republican presidential candidates several times in the past? And even when the Democratic presidential candidate won, there was a sizeable number who voted for the Republican? Obviously their votes are lost due to your winner-takes-all voting system, but I think you're severely overestimating the association of California as a whole to the Democratic party.

http://www.270towin.com/states/California

Since 1992 California has been solid blue. Its true that in the last 10 Presidential elections it voted for a Republican 5 times, but the last time was 1988, that was the year I was born. I am almost 24 which means it has been over two decades since the last time California voted for a Republican President and since then the closest it has been 53% to 42% when they went for Gore over Bush in 2000. I can safely say that California is a present a solid blue state.

I've been to places in Northern California and I know that outside the cities live some good an level-headed people but there simply are not enough of them to make up for the urban population that strongly leans to the far left (and gives us the stereotype for the snooty know-it-all liberal).

Marriage: An institution brought about by religion, for the purposes of sending more people to hell (most of the time while still on this planet) for having sex prior to marriage.
And part of me wonders why people even want to get married these days... it doesn't make life easier, doesn't give tax breaks, messes with tons of benefits...

amaranth_dru:
Marriage: An institution brought about by religion, for the purposes of sending more people to hell (most of the time while still on this planet) for having sex prior to marriage.
And part of me wonders why people even want to get married these days... it doesn't make life easier, doesn't give tax breaks, messes with tons of benefits...

Marriage likely predates even the earliest religions. It is a social construct more than a religious construct.

Homosexuality is an abomination but Romney is just a big fake. He's also an apostate because he's a Mormon. I'd still vote for him over Barry though.

I'm going to put my bet down now that in 3 or 4 years they will catch Mitt in a stall with a male aid. Isn't that how it always goes down with Anti-gay right republicans?

Seriously though, I hate this country so much right now. I feel like, no matter what you did as a citizen the country would just continue to get worse and worse. They are bigoted against homosexuality, the government can't seem to fix its own spending(I mean seriously? I can balance a checkbook and I didn't go to Harvard / Yale) and their is so much corruption in DC I don't know why they don't just put a for sale sign outside of congress

Servant:
Homosexuality is an abomination but Romney is just a big fake. He's also an apostate because he's a Mormon. I'd still vote for him over Barry though.

Please stop trolling.

Honestly every post that you make, you insult people. So please just stop.

OT: What a surprise that he is against gay people.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked