Manhattan Buckeye;1258507 wrote:"What child would choose to have a circumcision or to do any number of other things kids do/are made to?"

Me. My wife won't sleep with an uncut dude. Smegma. I've never known a circumcised guy that regretted it, more to your point:


"You don't need a "strong male/father" and a "strong female/mother" figure to have a kid turn out well"

I agree, and I apologize if I'm repeating the point, which I am, but in adoption it is about the BEST, not just well, not turning out well, not being well it is about the BEST. It is a situation which can be controlled (and the government does control), and as long as we have female/male parents that are available it is the BEST situation. That doesn't mean other families are wrong or bad, it just isn't the BEST, nothing wrong with that.

So adoption should only be for wealthy families then?

Also I hope that Rubio isn't the future. I mean for fuck's sake: "faith in almighty god is the first American value".

I Wear Pants;1258508 wrote:So adoption should only be for wealthy families then?

I agree wealth shouldn't be an issue. But the ability to provide should be an issue IMO. That's why adoption is so costly, all of the services we know pretty much do an IRS finger up your rear end inspection. Tax returns, health reports, genealogical review (I really didn't understand that), mental health reviews (fortunately I've been declared sane). It isn't easy. And what is considered by agencies a "disruptive" event is a very devastating moment. We live overseas and perhaps we're biased due to Chinese policies but it is 5 years minimum on the waitlist.

I Wear Pants;1258510 wrote:Also I hope that Rubio isn't the future. I mean for ****'s sake: "faith in almighty god is the first American value".

I didn't care for that comment either but I think he was just addressing his Cuban following.

Manhattan Buckeye;1258511 wrote:I agree wealth shouldn't be an issue. But the ability to provide should be an issue IMO. That's why adoption is so costly, all of the services we know pretty much do an IRS finger up your rear end inspection. Tax returns, health reports, genealogical review (I really didn't understand that), mental health reviews (fortunately I've been declared sane). It isn't easy. And what is considered by agencies a "disruptive" event is a very devastating moment. We live overseas and perhaps we're biased due to Chinese policies but it is 5 years minimum on the waitlist.

Oh definitely, adoption isn't a poor person's game. Nor should it be (though really poor people shouldn't have their own kids anyway, partly why I have the views I do in regards to sex education, contraceptives, abortion).

But really what I don't get is that apparently you're seeing a scenario wherein a gay couple gets a child over a straight couple (assuming all else equal) and view this as bad. We'll hold our disagreements there for a second to talk about the likelihood of that scenario. I've been under the impression that there aren't enough adoptive parents and not that there are too many. If the former is true then that scenario you seem to fear doesn't seem very likely to occur so barring that I don't understand your objections to gay people being able to adopt.

I Wear Pants;1258497 wrote:^^^ This.

We have too many people thinking like Greece on both sides of the aisle and almost no one thinking like Iceland.

We are thinking like Iceland. We haven't cut any spending. They didn't have any kind of recovery until they defaulted on their debt and went bankrupt. At that point their economy bottomed out and the people were saved from starvation by the other Scandinavian countries. Luckily they only have 300,000 people instead of 300 million.

Of course the difference is that Iceland does not have the world's reserve currency, so they could only inflate so much before the thing came crashing down, which limited the damage. We do have the world's reserve currency, enforced by our global imperial troops. We can print a lot longer and a lot more, meaning when our crash comes it will make Iceland's look like a joke.

I Wear Pants;1258514 wrote:Oh definitely, adoption isn't a poor person's game. Nor should it be (though really poor people shouldn't have their own kids anyway, partly why I have the views I do in regards to sex education, contraceptives, abortion).

But really what I don't get is that apparently you're seeing a scenario wherein a gay couple gets a child over a straight couple (assuming all else equal) and view this as bad. We'll hold our disagreements there for a second to talk about the likelihood of that scenario. I've been under the impression that there aren't enough adoptive parents and not that there are too many. If the former is true then that scenario you seem to fear doesn't seem very likely to occur so barring that I don't understand your objections to gay people being able to adopt.

Thanks IWP, I respect your opinion.

I am sort of conflicted on the subject due to my wife's experience (and vicariously mine). Normally in the U.S. to get an adoption you have to be matched (this is a process to take six months or so after a home review and yadda yadda yadda), pay the lawyers' bills, pay the birth mother's bills etc.. It is a time issue. And an expense issue you may have noted. I agree with you that in many circumstances a gay couple wouldn't be placed above a heterosexual couple if nothing else because the birth mother dictates the terms of the adoptive couple. But it does happen.

Seriously I don't think it is that big of a deal - it really isn't, I really don't care about gay rights as long as it stays in the bedroom where most of our actions belong. My wife and I deal mostly with Chinese adoptions and the ability to get young girls into the U.S. that would otherwise be aborted or put in trash cans until a couple has a boy. If we had our way we'd adopt five girls and bring them back to the States, unfortunately we can't do that. But our viewpoint is that a strong male and female presence is the best. Necessary? Maybe not, but still the best.

I think that and I'm sure studies would support, that children raised by a PAIR of caring parents do better than a child from a dysfunctional relationship. Whether a child needs specifically a male and female role model is much more debatable, but I would assume it would be, especially if you believe in the traditional male/female family unit, which many people feel are under attack.

Social change is a tricky thing. If an idea is right and just it will win out eventually...but elitist pronouncements and mandates are not the way to accomplish this and may retard what should be an evolution...not a revolution. Rapid change makes people very unconfomfortable, especially when long held, deep seeded beliefs are challenged.
I think those in my generation are in the best position to see/understand this....having known how are grandparents thought about 'social issues', then seeing the difference in our parents, knowing our own beliefs, and then finally seeing the difference in our children and how they view the same social issues. It is my opinion that it is best to let social issues evolve gradually in a natural course.

I think this is why you can find Republicans that so vigorously support a party that they may not be totally in alignment with. There are single issue people on both sides of the aisle, but what unites Republicans is a belief in the individual....individual accomplishment, individual liberty, individual responsibility, and acceptance of individual thought even if different from our own. What is so dangerous about people holding on to long standing and traditional beliefs, compared to the programmed, 'group think' expoused by liberals?

Hits, I find it weird when people choose to give their voice to people who so loudly proclaim things they disdain.

For years...and hopefully no more... the Democrats enjoyed the support from the great majority of Catholics despite their stance on abortion. Cognitive dissonance....it exists.

HitsRus;1258604 wrote:I think that and I'm sure studies would support, that children raised by a PAIR of caring parents do better than a child from a dysfunctional relationship.

Sure, assuming that the pair of caring parents can be less dysfunctional by living apart.

^^^???I don't understand your point.

HitsRus;1258604 wrote:What is so dangerous about people holding on to long standing and traditional beliefs, compared to the programmed, 'group think' expoused by liberals?

That's the one defining issue that puts me at odds with liberals.

The ideology that claims be "all-inclusive" openly, proudly, and defiantly excludes those who hold these long standing and traditional conservative beliefs.

I believe that while most conservatives disagree with liberalism, we certainly are more willing to accept and defend the right of individuals to embrace liberal ideology than liberals are willing to include and accept folks with conservative views in their alleged "all-inclusive" club of "cultural enlightenment."

Also I hope that Rubio isn't the future. I mean for ****'s sake: "faith in almighty god is the first American value".

I don't think he was harkening to a religious republic as much as he was stating the long standing reverance that God has traditionally in our country.
E.g. (sic) ...our rights flow from God and nature, not the government.

HitsRus;1258627 wrote:E.g. (sic) ...our rights flow from God and nature, not the government.

Not sure how anyone can dispute that but there are, indeed, nanny state disciples.

BoatShoes;1258502 wrote: But like you say...doesn't matter if Romney and Ryan's plans violate your advocated governing principles even worse. BHO just sucks that much.

Again, you are creating strawmen to argue against because your spend spend spend is so defenseless.

Once again, no one is advocating balancing the budget tomorrow. Romney gets us moving in the right direction, Obama will take us further down the wrong road.

You keep trying to equate the two, which is unique in at least it attempts to prop-up Obama by making it appear Romney is the same, yet you talk about more spending while admitting it's been spent on the wrong things. So why do you still continue to support and defend Obama? It's sort of like you hate yourself for what you believe and try to maintain just enough denial in order to function.

A day later whoever decided the Eastwood thing was a good idea should be fired.

That is front and center on almost all the news coverage right now, and blowing up on Twitter, and Willard is literally an after thought.

They decided to run with the Eastwood thing instead of a bio piece on Willard, and everyone agrees now the bio piece would have been a better use of hte time. Someone made the comment that during it Ann Romney had the look on her face of a mother at her daughter's wedding having to watch a wildly inappropriate drunken toast. The Eastwood thing just did not go over well.

IggyPride00;1258728 wrote:A day later whoever decided the Eastwood thing was a good idea should be fired.

That is front and center on almost all the news coverage right now, and blowing up on Twitter, and Willard is literally an after thought.

They decided to run with the Eastwood thing instead of a bio piece on Willard, and everyone agrees now the bio piece would have been a better use of hte time. Someone made the comment that during it Ann Romney had the look on her face of a mother at her daughter's wedding having to watch a wildly inappropriate drunken toast. The Eastwood thing just did not go over well.

What office is Clint running for? What cabinet position is he lobbying to acquire? What government job is he actively campaigning to get? He's an actor and a fantastic director. I suppose when Samuel Jackson tweets that Isaac should have killed the conventioners, it was OK. When Ellen Barkin spews her venom, it's OK. When Michael Moore opens his pie hole, he's revered. Biden? Are you f*cking kidding me?

Clint stuttered and stammered as he ad-libbed his ENTIRE speech. Let's see Barry ad-lib anything for 15 minutes. Bet he surpasses Clint's stammers and it won't be close.

By the way, Clint got under Barry's skin big time. He had to respond about the empty chair with his tweet saying something about, "it's occupied". If Clint wasn't effective, Barry would have ignored it.

I didn't care much for Eastwood's speech. It WAS frequently awkward and uncomfortable. But he did have a couple of fantastic lines. I do, however, struggle to understand who they were hoping to connect to with Eastwood. I don't particularly imagine he was going to sway anyone not on board, although perhaps they thought he would do well with the far right that was maybe not very motivated to get out and vote for Mitt. But even as far as seniors/retirees, he didn't really touch on anything important to them.

In the back of my mind - and it's a tough one, because it means someone was way overthinking it - they went with Clint because many viewed that SB Chrysler commercial as an endorsement of Obama. Maybe the goal was to rile-up Hollywood and the UAW and have them further discredit themselves with more hateful attacks. Seems a bit of a reach, but when you have 50 some speakers or however many it was you can throw a few fliers in there.

The bigger or real criticism might be the placement of Clint's appearance. Probably not the best choice to be so close to a key speaker, and in this case the most important one. Should have gone Day 1 or maybe Day 2 with a buffer between Ryan.

I think the Repub establishment view Clint as being akin to John Wayne..IE: a Hollyweird actor mainstream Americans view as - well - mainstream American.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the planning meetings for this stuff. I'm sure there are plenty of "WTF?" moments.

Can't wait to see what the Dems trot out in their DNC Circus.

believer;1258792 wrote: Can't wait to see what the Dems trot out in their DNC Circus.

Looking forward to Pelosi for the lulz.

Unrelated news, but it is the thread everyone is posting in and affects us in Ohio, but a federal judge today through out the law passed this year to curtail early voting before the election.

The rule cut-off in-person voting the weekend before the election and liberals cried foul because the people voting in that period were disproportionately black, and that the law was designed to target them.

After a chaotic 2004 election, Ohio passed a law allowing early in-person voting on the weekend before the election. In 2008, some 930,000 Ohioans cast votes in that period. Those who did so were more likely to be African-American. A study by Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates found blacks accounted for 56 percent of all in-person early votes in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, while they accounted for 26 percent of votes overall. In Franklin County, which includes Columbus, African Americans cast 31 percent of early votes and 21 percent of votes overall.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/ohio-obama-early-voting-lawsuit_n_1821882.html

I have seen it mentioned that this case may actually make it to the Supreme Court before the election.

Given that Willard can't win the presidency without Ohio, how this plays out could have a massive impact on the election. Suppressing turnout is key for him because Republican voters usually vote regardless, while Democrat party voters are traditionally more fickle and prone to stay home if it takes any extra effort to cast a ballot.

Apparently many black churches in the state organize bus drives to their congregations to the polls after services on that Sunday before the election to help turnout, which is why it was important to pass that law to specifically cut off the voting on the weekend before so as to hurt their turnout efforts.

This is going to be interesting to see how this turns out considering the impact it will have on the nation potentially.

I'm not really sure how a uniform state law that DOES NOT prevent anyone from casting their vote would be unconstitutional. If you have to open one, then the whole state should have the same access. And that costs money, which in these times seems to be a ridiculous waste of money for voters that are, to be perfectly honest, otherwise too lazy to vote.

If it's a transportation issue, then let churches run shuttles on Tuesday. Give a nice sermon filled with fear and racism and then take all the fired-up parishioners to the polls. In some respects that's almost coercive and might help explain why blacks favor Dems in such astonishingly/extraordinarily high percentages. Flash mob voting, lmao.

I don't think making it easier and more convenient to vote is at all a bad thing, but it's not free. Good lord, do we really need to cater to people in order to exercise their right to vote? If they don't value that right enough to show a little initiative we shouldn't value their votes enough to accomodate them.

[video=youtube;_dbyAZrY1S8][/video]

I don't see how allowing in-person voting a week before Election Day is "suppressing turnout."

fish82;1258852 wrote:I don't see how allowing in-person voting a week before Election Day is "suppressing turnout."

Liberals feel the weekend exclusion on that weekend was done specifically to target them when the data came out about how many african americans were voting via church shuttles on that Sunday before the election.

It is pretty clear that is exactly why it was done (it's part of politics), but I also don't see how there has to be any requirement people be allowed to vote any day other than election day or absentee.

Weekend voting should be offered. Maybe it's not as effective if schedules aren't consistent, but otherwise they don't need to be open every weekday for a month - cut back that some and offer a few weekends. But no one is being denied or prevented from voting, and that really should be the end of the debate.

On a related matter, I'm not sure when early voting starts but it really should not be allowed before all the debates have been completed.