[quote]McCain lost me with the bailout.[/quote] I think that was one of the best opportunities he had to win the election, or at least really differentiate himself on the economy from Bush. If he had voted no, voiced opposition to the bailout, he would have better been able to tap into the anger that the American people felt about the legislation.
1. Divorce rates for heterosexual couples are also high. Wouldn't it be better to offer gay couples the option of being able to marry, so that there is at least some legal framework in the case of a divorce? I'm not sure which "10 thousand studies" you're referencing, because all of the most recent data I've read shows no support for your claims. If you really believe what you say, though, logically you should support criminalizing single parenthood as a form of chil
EL-D covered things pretty well, so I'll just add a few comments. 1. Agree with EL-D. Recent research in the field of psychology and sociology shows no difference between children raised by gay/lesbian couples and children raised by heterosexual couples. 2. By your own admission, statistics are that the "traditional family" structure has already eroded in modern society. And that happened with no legalization of gay marriage. The causal relationship sim
Although I disagree with some points, overall a good analysis of the situation Dr. Guy. The law of diminishing returns is a great explanation. When Obama announced his infomercial, my reaction was: "Seriously?" I think a lot of money is wasted during the course of these election cycles by all parties involved, particularly in the last-minute blitz of campaigning as Election Day nears. Individuals that have decided by this point usually aren't that persuadable, an
[quote]I for one am glad that he is going with people that have some experience.[/quote] I agree. As much as Obama sounds like a radical idealist sometimes, I think in many ways he's fairly pragmatic and moderate. I think he's trying to balance "change" versus necessity-- already there's talk about keeping on members of the Bush staff in various key roles, including Robert Gates. Unfortunately, left-wing bloggers will undoubtedly jump on him, as they did when he vote
[quote]I will say you have poor reading skills as no one called me on anything when I called the poster a liar. [/quote] I called you out on it, by the way. That's what, you know, my original post was. It was less that you called someone out for lying and more that you sounded silly and a bit immature. Your comments in general? Perhaps the best evidence that the Right can be just as angry of a bunch.
[quote]can you give me the text you're referring to? I'm curious about this one. [/quote] The passage I'm referring to is Leviticus 14: 33-57. [quote]Your first thought should be...to whom was it addressed? Whom was Paul addressing? Whom was Moses addressing? Very important. [/quote] A good question. You should consider, then, that precisely the same questions and comments can be raised about the passages concerning homosexuality. For example, the passa
[quote]If you knew the bible you'd also know that was temporary until the NT when God ok'd the eating of shellfish and those same meats. You may want to read Acts 10. Homosexuality was both forbidden in the OT and the NT with some pretty strong admonitions in both.[/quote] Peter's dream from Acts does address the food prohibitions. So, how about the witchcraft and sorcery prohibitions in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Galatians, then? Should we criminalize Paganism? If you s
[quote]They've had a glimpse of his new economic tax plan and it's not in their favor. [/quote] A glimpse? Bush is still president, although it's unlikely he'll do much notable until Obama comes to power.
[quote]YOu cant make a poor person rich if his choice is to be poor.[/quote] True. However, I doubt that most poor people wake up in the morning and say to themselves "Well, I can either be productive and make money, or continue to be extremely poor. Looks like I'll keep being poor!"
[quote]You dont like it, dont read it. [/quote] See, I believe in something called "discussion." This may be an unfamiliar concept to you, so I'll lay it out. People talk to each other. They don't always agree. In fact, they shouldn't always agree. When they don't agree, they say it. I don't really care about PC-ness. I do care about baseless or uninformed arguments. You seem to feel perfectly fine about talking about the things other pe
No vindictiveness here. First, the market was up on the day of the election, massively up. Obama's win was widely anticipated-- look at the predictor markets. Also, according to an article on Fox Business, of all places: "Analysts said the losses were less of a reaction to the expected outcome of Barack Obama's election, rather an indictment of the economic situation that will greet him when he takes office in January." http://www.foxbusiness.com/
[quote]Did I say my opinion was the final word?[/quote] Yes, actually. You said "If I were raised by two dads and had no mother I think I'd be a bit resentful myself everytime I saw my girlfriend shop and snuggle with her mom on the couch. Every girl wants a mom. Every boy needs a dad." Either I grossly misunderstand the meaning of the word "facts" and the meaning of the word "opinions," or you were in fact making sweeping generalizations based on your own pers
[quote]Even in times past when homosexuality flourished it was NEVER accepted as ordinary or moral. It was accepted for what it was...sin. Just like murder and theft and it was based on moral biblical principles. [/quote] Really? I'm thinking ancient Greece. Try again. [quote]More later on the founding fathers and their Christianity or deism[/quote] While I'm sure that would lead to a fascinating discussion, the point is that since we aren't the Founders,
[quote]Charles all I'm saying is it's in the best interest of the boy to have a dad. [/quote] It seems to be a little arrogant, or at least naive, to assume that your opinion stands as the final word in this matter. I know and have met children raised by gay/lesbian couples. They seemed happy. In fact, what bothered them most was that people treated them like they were somehow "deficient" in their development because their family structure was different. The
[quote]Homosexuality has always, in the past, been considered a sin or deviant behavior until most recently. [/quote] I'm confused. Didn't you also argue that there were ancient societies in the past that tolerated and accepted homosexuality? [quote]In fact Homosexuality was on a list of psychological disorders as late as 1973. [/quote] True. But that doesn't mean is was right. There were reasons why it was taken off the list. Frankly, I'll go
[quote]I find it odd that you would make the absurd claim that somehow it is unacceptable that one might guide political decisions with a particular religious outlook, that of a theist, and then demand that one uses a different religious outlook, that of the atheist.[/quote] This would be a good argument, except you're missing something. This is not about having a religious reason versus having no reason. As someone familar with the basic tenets of the Constitution, you wo
[quote] You are such a lousy liar.[/quote] Wow. Political discussion has reached a new low. Congrats. It's funny, you know, people love to make broad sweeping assertions using anecdotal or limited evidence. "I know someone in the know who says ____." Impressive. "Based on an isolated event of stabbing, liberals are angry." Good argument. Here's a suggestion: get a nonpartisan research organization to do a peer-reviewed study that
Perhaps I'm confused. The vote tallies in Colorado are exactly the opposite of your reporting. South Dakota voted down the abortion ban. At this point, it seems likely that California did as well. Washington approved doctor-assisted suicide. The only trends that I think can really be drawn from this is that there is still high support for bans on gay marriage. I really doubt that many people are surprised by that particular factoid.
If you're up for some amusement, check the Fox News Forums. There you'll find plenty of people talking about moving to other countries, including Mexico. You'll find people claiming that the Antichrist has won, the End Times are upon us, the USA will turn into the USSR, blah blah blah. What amazes me is how quickly people-- on both sides-- jump to suspicion, paranoia, and hatefulness and believe that somehow this will improve the country. For America's sake, get over
PolMach Forums
Query-- Possibly this has been answered elsewhere but I haven't seen it. Will we ever see debates included as a part of the game in future updates for TPM 2008 or is that more on the table for TPM 2012?