BoatShoes;957437 wrote:Don't you agree though that the feelings of the hardcore conservative base and the die hards though at least can move candidates to the front of the pack?

They could if they would get behind one candidate. Right now the conservatives are split. Conservative are fluctuating between three candidates. Perry once the favor of conservatives appears out after his horrible debate performances. With his recent speach in New Hampshire where he appeared to have thrown a few down in warm ups, Perry is done. Conservatives are split between Cain, Gingrich, and Paul in that order.

Romney the republican establishment candidate has remained steady at +-25% nationally. State to state is a different ballgame. If the conservatives solidify behind one candidate Romney will not get the nomination. If they remain split Romney is in. If Cain goes down that probably benefits Paul the most. Leaving Gingrich and Paul to duke it out for the conservatives vote.

Looks like this Cain harassment thing is near its end. Its obvious now. Cain has said he would like to see the details of the agreement released and not reveal the names of the accusers (Cain is not a signatory to that agreement). The national restaurant association has now said the same. The only party opposed to its release or further comment is the accuser.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/04/cain-maintains-momentum-despite-sexual-harassment-allegations-polls-show/?test=latestnews

"Notwithstanding the Association's ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised Mr. Bennett that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit Mr. Bennett's client to comment," "As indicated in Mr. Bennett's statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision."

majorspark;958665 wrote:Looks like this Cain harassment thing is near its end. Its obvious now. Cain has said he would like to see the details of the agreement released and not reveal the names of the accusers (Cain is not a signatory to that agreement). The national restaurant association has now said the same. The only party opposed to its release or further comment is the accuser.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/04/cain-maintains-momentum-despite-sexual-harassment-allegations-polls-show/?test=latestnews

"Notwithstanding the Association's ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised Mr. Bennett that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit Mr. Bennett's client to comment," "As indicated in Mr. Bennett's statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision."

Anderson Cooper will have to come up with new material for his CNN time slot now.

The Cain Scandal shouldn't be the reason his campaign fails, his policies and ideas will do that for him.

I Wear Pants;957269 wrote:The average voter is too stupid to understand the words from the horse's mouth. Cain has surged because the GOP machine thinks they have a good chance with him. I disagree with that.

The GOP machine wants Romney. Establishment rebuplicans are scared shitless of candidates like Cain, Bachman, Paul, or Santorum. They could probably live with Gingrich. The establishment thinks Ron Paul is a grumpy old loon, Cain is unwashed, Bachman is an airhead, and Santorum is a religious fanatic. In their eyes none of these candidates stands a chance against Obama. Romney is their guy.

The average conservative stupid schlubs are split between Cain, Gingrich, and Paul. Cain enjoys the most support because of his bold tax plan that scraps the current tax code. Cain also does not speak like a politician because he is not one. Gingrich is very intellegent. He knows his shit. He can make a point very well that the average schlub can grasp. The thing with Gingrich is he is a savvy politician. He knows his audience and right now he is playing up the conservative base. In other words I don't fully trust the guy.

Paul is finding it difficult to get his message across to the average schlub. Like I said before its like he is trying to feed a porterhouse steak to babes. The current debate formats make it very difficult for Paul. Sometimes he just not have enough time and just starts throwing everything out there. He hits homeruns when he is able to sit down for an extended interview. I liked some of the latest where he sat down at a table on Morning Joe and the Fox Roundtable. He was able to expand on his points and flummoxed some of his interrogators.

Like I said I may vote for Paul. It depends on where things stand when Ohio's primary comes around. The Ronulins whining about the media is so weak. This is not 1980 there a plenty of competing media outlets via cable/sattelite and the internet. Reagan had a true media disadvantage and took his message straight to the people. Paul definitely lacks some of Reagans speaking skills but its still not an excuse.

majorspark;959059 wrote:The GOP machine wants Romney. Establishment rebuplicans are scared shitless of candidates like Cain, Bachman, Paul, or Santorum. They could probably live with Gingrich. The establishment thinks Ron Paul is a grumpy old loon, Cain is unwashed, Bachman is an airhead, and Santorum is a religious fanatic. In their eyes none of these candidates stands a chance against Obama. Romney is their guy.

The average conservative stupid schlubs are split between Cain, Gingrich, and Paul. Cain enjoys the most support because of his bold tax plan that scraps the current tax code. Cain also does not speak like a politician because he is not one. Gingrich is very intellegent. He knows his shit. He can make a point very well that the average schlub can grasp. The thing with Gingrich is he is a savvy politician. He knows his audience and right now he is playing up the conservative base. In other words I don't fully trust the guy.

Paul is finding it difficult to get his message across to the average schlub. Like I said before its like he is trying to feed a porterhouse steak to babes. The current debate formats make it very difficult for Paul. Sometimes he just not have enough time and just starts throwing everything out there. He hits homeruns when he is able to sit down for an extended interview. I liked some of the latest where he sat down at a table on Morning Joe and the Fox Roundtable. He was able to expand on his points and flummoxed some of his interrogators.

Like I said I may vote for Paul. It depends on where things stand when Ohio's primary comes around. The Ronulins whining about the media is so weak. This is not 1980 there a plenty of competing media outlets via cable/sattelite and the internet. Reagan had a true media disadvantage and took his message straight to the people. Paul definitely lacks some of Reagans speaking skills but its still not an excuse.

Everyone should be scared shitless of the idea of Santorum as president. Because he is a religious fanatic.

The other ones I don't like either because of their views but Santorum is straight up insane.

He won't come close.

Wasn't Santorum the one that said that homosexuality was a threat to the American family?

O-Trap;959089 wrote:Wasn't Santorum the one that said that homosexuality was a threat to the American family?

Among other things.

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, ... You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

I Wear Pants;959111 wrote:Among other things.

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, ... You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

Except for incest, I actually agree with everything he said. Difference is, I think those things should not be prohibited on a national level.

And I even think a case could be made for incest.

And wait, isn't adultery already legal? What was he trying to accomplish by including that?

O-Trap;959279 wrote:Except for incest, I actually agree with everything he said. Difference is, I think those things should not be prohibited on a national level.

And I even think a case could be made for incest.

And wait, isn't adultery already legal? What was he trying to accomplish by including that?

In some States Adultery is a crime, rarely prosecuted, but since your a Ron paul fan you should be ok with that.

Skyhook79;959380 wrote:In some States Adultery is a crime, rarely prosecuted, but since your a Ron paul fan you should be ok with that.

States have the right to make that law and enforce it as they see fit.

Do you disagree?

O-Trap;959279 wrote:
And I even think a case could be made for incest.

What. The. Fuck????

BGFalcons82;959471 wrote:What. The. Fuck????

I didn't say I don't find it gross. I, personally, think it's nasty.

However, if two consenting adults, related or not, want to do the deed, I don't think that should be prohibited on a federal level.

They need to be responsible for the consequences, of course, but it's their prerogative, and plus, there are non-impregnating ways to get busy.

O-Trap;959279 wrote:Except for incest, I actually agree with everything he said. Difference is, I think those things should not be prohibited on a national level.

And I even think a case could be made for incest.

And wait, isn't adultery already legal? What was he trying to accomplish by including that?

How do you agree? The supreme court allowing one thing doesn't mean it allows another.

I Wear Pants;959508 wrote:How do you agree? The supreme court allowing one thing doesn't mean it allows another.

No, but if the premise used to defend one thing can be used to defend another, and that premise is found sufficient for legitimizing the former, it stands to reason that the same ought to be applied to the latter.

The grounds on which the supreme court deciding in support of one can be used, almost identically, to support the other.

O-Trap;959598 wrote:No, but if the premise used to defend one thing can be used to defend another, and that premise is found sufficient for legitimizing the former, it stands to reason that the same ought to be applied to the latter.

The grounds on which the supreme court deciding in support of one can be used, almost identically, to support the other.

I guess my question is then "do you feel that it's right to outlaw gay sex because there is a risk of precedent being set by doing so that could be used to legalize more distasteful sexual endeavors?"

O-Trap;959483 wrote:I didn't say I don't find it gross. I, personally, think it's nasty.

However, if two consenting adults, related or not, want to do the deed, I don't think that should be prohibited on a federal level.

They need to be responsible for the consequences, of course, but it's their prerogative, and plus, there are non-impregnating ways to get busy.

Incest is sexual intercourse between close blood relatives or marriage of close blood relatives. Other ways to get busy are not considered incest acts. It should be prohibited by Federal law , even though all states consider it a crime, except for Rhode Island.

I Wear Pants;959617 wrote:I guess my question is then "do you feel that it's right to outlaw gay sex because there is a risk of precedent being set by doing so that could be used to legalize more distasteful sexual endeavors?"

Nope. "Distasteful" is subjective, and I tend to want as little subjectivity in lawmaking as possible.

I say if the people involved are of legal age and sound mind, it should be fine.

Skyhook79;959687 wrote:Incest is sexual intercourse between close blood relatives or marriage of close blood relatives. Other ways to get busy are not considered incest acts.

Fair enough. So a couple of cousins commit no federally mandated crime if it's only fellatio, cunnilingus, or anilingus (or any other act that is not technically copulation).

Skyhook79;959687 wrote:It should be prohibited by Federal law ...

On which grounds, and in reference to which constitutionally granted power of the federal government?

If the people are "snipped," what's the problem?

Hell, even if they have children, and those children may be disabled in some way, what are the grounds for it being a federal issue? It doesn't harm the offspring, as the act is committed prior to the existence of said offspring, and since the absence of it would mean the absence of that offspring.

Skyhook79;959687 wrote:Incest is sexual intercourse between close blood relatives or marriage of close blood relatives. Other ways to get busy are not considered incest acts. It should be prohibited by Federal law , even though all states consider it a crime, except for Rhode Island.

First off as stated the feds really have no constitutional authority concerning these issues. 49/50 states got it right to one extent or another. I am satisfied with that. You do not want the federal government involved in deciding moral issues. When the feds get involved it will not be through the federal legislature. It will be through the judicial branch by fiat.

Five judges in black robes may one day force your state to accept gay marriage. They have already forced your state to permit the killing of babies in the womb within your states borders. It amazes me when conservatives cry for big government to enforce their beliefs on whole the nation via federal power. While on the other hand lamenting its use on other issues.

http://mobile.nj.com/advnj/pm_104369/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=h8zTFuk2


sometimes its easy to believe he is being ignored.

majorspark;959984 wrote: You do not want the federal government involved in deciding moral issues. When the feds get involved it will not be through the federal legislature. It will be through the judicial branch by fiat.

I understand and respect the position and logic, I just struggle to justify the inefficiencies and other issues allowing states to decide this individually. I get that 200 years ago the goal was to keep the federal govt from having too much power, but the states were far more independent with most cities a few days travel or more from another city. Now you outlaw abortion and someone can drive 30 minutes west or even hop on a plane to Canada. And I can't reconcile how, in the USA, a gay couple's marriage can be recognized on spot "X" and not recognized two steps to the right across the state line.

There's so much mobility today, even just with jobs not to mention travel and moving to new states, that our society IS becoming more homeogenous (relatively speaking) and that SHOULD dictate more uniformity in laws. I have NEVER thought of myself an Ohioan first and American second. Now ignorance of the law is no excuse, and while it may not affect a traveler, it seems really moronic to have to learn and comply with different state laws everywhere I do business.

What I would propose, instead, is that some of these issues be put to popular vote rather than decided in a Congress based on back-room deals. If you want abortion to be illegal, let 50.1% of the US population say so (which I doubt ever happens and why this should be a dead issue).

The whole concept seems rather stupid and wasteful to me. People aren't going to uproot their family because their state decides for or against abortion or gay marriage. They really aren't affected by it either way beyond a false sense of moral stewardship. Again I go back to being an American first and Ohioan/Michigander second, but I think the practical reality is there are some things that make more sense to do on the federal level and others on the state level.

gut;960173 wrote:I understand and respect the position and logic, I just struggle to justify the inefficiencies and other issues allowing states to decide this individually. I get that 200 years ago the goal was to keep the federal govt from having too much power, but the states were far more independent with most cities a few days travel or more from another city. Now you outlaw abortion and someone can drive 30 minutes west or even hop on a plane to Canada. And I can't reconcile how, in the USA, a gay couple's marriage can be recognized on spot "X" and not recognized two steps to the right across the state line.

There's so much mobility today, even just with jobs not to mention travel and moving to new states, that our society IS becoming more homeogenous (relatively speaking) and that SHOULD dictate more uniformity in laws. I have NEVER thought of myself an Ohioan first and American second. Now ignorance of the law is no excuse, and while it may not affect a traveler, it seems really moronic to have to learn and comply with different state laws everywhere I do business.

What I would propose, instead, is that some of these issues be put to popular vote rather than decided in a Congress based on back-room deals. If you want abortion to be illegal, let 50.1% of the US population say so (which I doubt ever happens and why this should be a dead issue).

The whole concept seems rather stupid and wasteful to me. People aren't going to uproot their family because their state decides for or against abortion or gay marriage. They really aren't affected by it either way beyond a false sense of moral stewardship. Again I go back to being an American first and Ohioan/Michigander second, but I think the practical reality is there are some things that make more sense to do on the federal level and others on the state level.

I agree and incest is one of them.

gut;960173 wrote:I understand and respect the position and logic, I just struggle to justify the inefficiencies and other issues allowing states to decide this individually. I get that 200 years ago the goal was to keep the federal govt from having too much power, but the states were far more independent with most cities a few days travel or more from another city. Now you outlaw abortion and someone can drive 30 minutes west or even hop on a plane to Canada.

The goal isn't to keep it from happening, though, so driving for an afternoon to another state isn't a problem for the person involved OR for the constituency of either state. If Ohio makes it illegal, but Kentucky is cool with it, how does it confound Ohio that someone heads down south to get it done?

It's essentially a case of "not under my roof" in a statewide sense. Just as you are free to allow or restrict things in your own home that are not expressed in local laws, a state should be free to allow or restrict things within their own borders that are not expressed in federal laws. Moreover, your neighbor doing or allowing things you don't like doesn't mean that said neighbor should be forced to stop it.

gut;960173 wrote:And I can't reconcile how, in the USA, a gay couple's marriage can be recognized on spot "X" and not recognized two steps to the right across the state line.

Well, the problem here is that marriage is governmentally sanctioned at all, but that's really a separate matter.

gut;960173 wrote:There's so much mobility today, even just with jobs not to mention travel and moving to new states, that our society IS becoming more homeogenous (relatively speaking) and that SHOULD dictate more uniformity in laws.

I would suggest that the mobility simply allows for more freedom to live in a place that has laws that fit your own respective tastes. If you have some dire need to keep teh gheyz from marrying in your state, you are free to live in a state where that is the case, should one exist at the time. That doesn't mean, however, that your taste should dictate the actions or opinions of everyone else.

gut;960173 wrote:I have NEVER thought of myself an Ohioan first and American second. Now ignorance of the law is no excuse, and while it may not affect a traveler, it seems really moronic to have to learn and comply with different state laws everywhere I do business.

What prevents this from being the same argument for an international traveler, regardless of how you recognize yourself first?

gut;960173 wrote: What I would propose, instead, is that some of these issues be put to popular vote rather than decided in a Congress based on back-room deals.

It's not an either/or situation, though, and each presents a problem. One leaves the law up to corruption, but the other shows little protection for the rights of the potential minority. If one state finds abortion to be against the rights of an unborn citizen, but another finds it to be in keeping with supporting the personal rights of the mother, why should either one be forced to accept the other just because people in a few states (potentially not even nearby) agree with the other?

gut;960173 wrote:If you want abortion to be illegal, let 50.1% of the US population say so (which I doubt ever happens and why this should be a dead issue).

So, the rights of the minority (whether established or pending establishment) get trampled because most people in the country wants them to be? Might makes right, in a sense?

Would you, or anyone who agrees with you, still be just as okay with this if it started infringing on your daily life in a negative way? If the majority of the country ends up saying the food currently served at fast food restaurants is unhealthy and should be illegal, they're usurping your own ability and right to make choices. If they say you are legally bound to force your children to play a high school sport because exercise is good for them, they are ostracizing your ability to make choices as a parent. Conversely, if they ban high school athletics in an attempt to preserve self esteem, they do the same.

gut;960173 wrote: The whole concept seems rather stupid and wasteful to me. People aren't going to uproot their family because their state decides for or against abortion or gay marriage.

Off the top of my head, I know three gay couples who have done just that. Families unaffected by the issues may not, but families affected by it very well might.

gut;960173 wrote:They really aren't affected by it either way beyond a false sense of moral stewardship. Again I go back to being an American first and Ohioan/Michigander second ...

Which is fine, because the constitutional authorities granted to the federal government DO supersede those at the state and local levels. They are simply limited in scope, and with good reason.

gut;960173 wrote:... but I think the practical reality is there are some things that make more sense to do on the federal level and others on the state level.

First, who gets to decide "what makes sense," and who determines whether or not the justification for it "making sense" is worthy to make it a federal issue?

You might not agree, but when in doubt, I'm much more comfortable erring on the side of less federal power than more federal power.

gut;960173 wrote:I understand and respect the position and logic, I just struggle to justify the inefficiencies and other issues allowing states to decide this individually. I get that 200 years ago the goal was to keep the federal govt from having too much power, but the states were far more independent with most cities a few days travel or more from another city. Now you outlaw abortion and someone can drive 30 minutes west or even hop on a plane to Canada. And I can't reconcile how, in the USA, a gay couple's marriage can be recognized on spot "X" and not recognized two steps to the right across the state line.

There's so much mobility today, even just with jobs not to mention travel and moving to new states, that our society IS becoming more homeogenous (relatively speaking) and that SHOULD dictate more uniformity in laws. I have NEVER thought of myself an Ohioan first and American second. Now ignorance of the law is no excuse, and while it may not affect a traveler, it seems really moronic to have to learn and comply with different state laws everywhere I do business.

What I would propose, instead, is that some of these issues be put to popular vote rather than decided in a Congress based on back-room deals. If you want abortion to be illegal, let 50.1% of the US population say so (which I doubt ever happens and why this should be a dead issue).

The whole concept seems rather stupid and wasteful to me. People aren't going to uproot their family because their state decides for or against abortion or gay marriage. They really aren't affected by it either way beyond a false sense of moral stewardship. Again I go back to being an American first and Ohioan/Michigander second, but I think the practical reality is there are some things that make more sense to do on the federal level and others on the state level.

Would you say that the issue should be killed before it's even born?

#goingtohell