Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, and then those Democrats (see Dixiecrats) jumped ship to the Republican party.

djones520 wrote:
The KKK was a organization founded by the democratic party to combat Republican attempts to desegregate this country. The Democratic party has fought kicking and screaming since the Emancipation Proclamation to hold African Americans back. All of this is well documented, in their terrorist acts, through their elected officials (like George Wallace), and the laws they've passed.

Open a history book sometime and read before making yourself look like an idiot.

Yep, the Republican party used to be the party of screaming liberals. Then FDR created a coalition that essentially made Republicans a minor party (who needed a war hero to get someone elected post WWII), and the Republicans needed to find a way to break that coalition - which they deveoped in 1968 with the GOP's Southern Strategy, which was to essentially use race without overtly using race.

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

That's Kevin Phillips, senior strategist for Richard Nixon in 68.

Or how about Lee Atwater, in the 1980s:

As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964... and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...

You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N@#$$r, N@#$$r, N@#$$r.' By 1968 you can't say 'N@#$$r' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'N@#$$r, N@#$$r.'

Kilkrazy wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:

dogma wrote:

Well, the Fed pretty well dug us out of the Great Depression by acting as a lender of last resort. Sure, WWII was the primary force in that it leveled the playing field, but without the ability to print paper programs like lend-lease, as the primary mechanism by which debt was eliminated, would have been impossible.

In any case, off the assumption that government bureaucracy is inefficient, could you give me an example of a corporation which does not give in to excess waste? Or any organization, for that matter? Actually, just define what 'waste' entails.

Actually corporations in a free market are far more efficient and less likely to "give in to excess waste" by the simple fact of competition. If they aren't efficient they fail and cease to exist. The only time this doesn't happen is when government intervenes and "bails out" a corporation. When that happens you usually see criminal charges and a restructuring to eliminate "excess waste" and increase efficiency. So in effect either way they are self correcting.

Now a government bureaucracy is a different animal altogether. For starters it has no competition and no way to fail. If it runs into cost overruns the people end up paying for it in increased taxes or money being redirected to it from other places like infrastructure. In fact a government bureaucracy will only grow larger. A bureaucracy's very existence becomes to sustain itself and it's policies will adjust themselves to ensure that it survives and grows.

Clearly you have never worked in a large corporation. They are seething pits of waste and bureacracy.

Small companies where every penny counts are the most efficient in their use of resources.

I speak as someone who has worked in both kinds of companies.

Really, I worked at a small company where the CEO worked only 32 hrours a week and blew the companies income on toys. A company both large or small is only as good as its leadership.

ChaosDave wrote:
Actually corporations in a free market are far more efficient and less likely to "give in to excess waste" by the simple fact of competition. If they aren't efficient they fail and cease to exist. The only time this doesn't happen is when government intervenes and "bails out" a corporation. When that happens you usually see criminal charges and a restructuring to eliminate "excess waste" and increase efficiency. So in effect either way they are self correcting.

You've contradicted yourself by considering government action as a kind of self-correction. In any case, free markets do not exist. They can be free to a degree, but a truly free market is simply anarchy. And that system has been defunct since the advent of language. So, all of history. You fail to appreciate that corporations can, and have, grown so large as to be equivalent to the system in which they operate. In that instance they function as government by another name. And when those corporations fail, so too does the society which they underpin.

ChaosDave wrote:
Now a government bureaucracy is a different animal altogether. For starters it has no competition and no way to fail. If it runs into cost overruns the people end up paying for it in increased taxes or money being redirected to it from other places like infrastructure. In fact a government bureaucracy will only grow larger. A bureaucracy's very existence becomes to sustain itself and it's policies will adjust themselves to ensure that it survives and grows.

Yea, that would be the purpose of all societies. To ensure their own existence. What do you think investment is all about?

Kilkrazy wrote:The same is true of companies, which is why big companies tend to be inefficient.

For all the propaganda the executives would like people to believe, it is rare for one guy at the top to be able to have any real influence on hundreds and thousands of lower level staff.

Tell that to Sam Walton who not only had a huge impact on all of his staff from top to bottom but also turned the whole retail market and its suppliers on thier head.

ChaosDave wrote:
As for America not being comparable to that kind of a factional environment, I'm not so sure. We are definitely factional, maybe not as extreme but it's still there none the less. If you want proof go to California and wear a "Yes on 8" t-shirt to any well populated public place and see what happens.

You probably won't get shot. Which is what would happen if you wore a T-shirt with 'I love Milosevic' in Kosovo. That's why the comparison is invalid. Most people here don't shoot each other over politics.

ChaosDave wrote:

Oh I would normally agree with you, but unfortunately that intolerance of differing opinions is much more wide spread and it grows everyday. Like I said a few posts up, if you don't believe me go to California and wear a "Yes on 8" t-shirt in a well populated public place and see what happens.

By wearing the shirt you invite intolerance on your self. It shows blind affiliation, not reasoned opinion. Tolerance isn't having you beliefs accepted. Tolerance is understanding that your beliefs can, will, and should be questioned.

dogma wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:

Oh I would normally agree with you, but unfortunately that intolerance of differing opinions is much more wide spread and it grows everyday. Like I said a few posts up, if you don't believe me go to California and wear a "Yes on 8" t-shirt in a well populated public place and see what happens.

By wearing the shirt you invite intolerance on your self. It shows blind affiliation, not reasoned opinion. Tolerance isn't having you beliefs accepted. Tolerance is understanding that your beliefs can, will, and should be questioned.

By your own reasoning, wearing a "No on 8" would likewise invite intolerance via blind affiliation.

When it comes down to it, Politics is about expressing personal moral values whether they be of a social, economic, or ecological nature. Accordingly, the group that expresses thier values the loudest and the strongest are the ones to see thier values become Law.

CorporateLogo wrote:I make no apologies for the views expressed by rubbercat.net even if they are hilarious.

Also: lol at all the people who think I wrote that myself and didn't steal it off a website

The fact that you chose to post it tells me plenty enough about you.

Cthulhu for president forever!

JohnHwangDD wrote:

CorporateLogo wrote:I make no apologies for the views expressed by rubbercat.net even if they are hilarious.

Also: lol at all the people who think I wrote that myself and didn't steal it off a website

The fact that you chose to post it tells me plenty enough about you.

Well I won't take John's strict stance, but the way it was posted kind of insinuated that you agreed in part.

wyomingfox wrote:When it comes down to it, Politics is about expressing personal moral values whether they be of a social, economic, or ecological nature. Accordingly, the group that expresses thier values the loudest and the strongest are the ones to see thier values become Law.

QFT, and beautifully put.

For the Yes on 8 crowd: If marriage is the same as civil unions, why does it matter if you call it marriage? Obviously it matters to the gay and gay-rights community based on the money they've spent, but why does it matter to you? Is your marriage suddenly less sacred cause Lance and Bruce down the street got married?

Grow up. Intolerance and Prejudice is wrong. If something is "sacred" then it shouldn't even be a political issue, it should be a Religious issue and that's between you and your god (with maybe your priest).

Oh and Vote McCain!

Ozy

Given how much the Yes on 8 crowd also spent, it obviously means an awful lot to some very deep-pocketed people.

As for intolerance and prejudice, to compare gay marriage with civil rights makes a mockery of the civil rights movement. Gays have the same civil rights and restrictions as anyone else.

I don't see anything that prevents gays or lesbians from marrying. Legally, a gay man or lesbian woman can still marry someone of the opposite sex, so their rights aren't being infringed whatsoever.

Similarly, gays and non-gays are equally restricted from marrying someone of the same sex, so the rights are again being treated equally under the law.

There is NO discrimination in the law or the amendment.

Now there may be disporportionate impact. But that's no different than noting how childless people overpay taxes that primarily support schools, or car-less people overpay taxes that fund roads.

Certainly, one can make a similar arguement for/against polygamy. If a man loves 2 women, and they love him, why can't he legally marry them both?

And given that families generally love one another, if a parent loves their child (of legally emancipable age), why can't they legally marry?

Clearly, those other civil "rights" are still not being properly supported, and anybody who argues against polygamy or incest must be some kind of evil monster...

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:

Oh I would normally agree with you, but unfortunately that intolerance of differing opinions is much more wide spread and it grows everyday. Like I said a few posts up, if you don't believe me go to California and wear a "Yes on 8" t-shirt in a well populated public place and see what happens.

By wearing the shirt you invite intolerance on your self. It shows blind affiliation, not reasoned opinion. Tolerance isn't having you beliefs accepted. Tolerance is understanding that your beliefs can, will, and should be questioned.

By your own reasoning, wearing a "No on 8" would likewise invite intolerance via blind affiliation.

When it comes down to it, Politics is about expressing personal moral values whether they be of a social, economic, or ecological nature. Accordingly, the group that expresses thier values the loudest and the strongest are the ones to see thier values become Law.

Yep, it sure would. I don't even know what prop 8 is. I don't live in California. The point is that if you are going to express an opinion you must be prepared to defend it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't see anything that prevents gays or lesbians from marrying. Legally, a gay man or lesbian woman can still marry someone of the opposite sex, so their rights aren't being infringed whatsoever.

Uh, what?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Similarly, gays and non-gays are equally restricted from marrying someone of the same sex, so the rights are again being treated equally under the law.

There is NO discrimination in the law or the amendment.

You're seriously trying to make this argument? That a group of people, who are defined by their romantic choices, are not having their rights infringed because they can always make different romantic choices? So what your saying, as I understand it, is that anyone who claims homosexuality can simply choose to be heterosexual?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Now there may be disporportionate impact. But that's no different than noting how childless people overpay taxes that primarily support schools, or car-less people overpay taxes that fund roads.

Actually, it is very different. Everyone pays those taxes. As it stands only homosexual people are barred from accessing the tax breaks inherent in marriage. There is significant difference between requirement and privilege.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Certainly, one can make a similar arguement for/against polygamy. If a man loves 2 women, and they love him, why can't he legally marry them both?

And given that families generally love one another, if a parent loves their child (of legally emancipable age), why can't they legally marry?

Clearly, those other civil "rights" are still not being properly supported, and anybody who argues against polygamy or incest must be some kind of evil monster...

Except there are other factors. Polygamy tends to be exploitative, and a similar stigma comes with incest.

Ozymandias wrote:

Grow up. Intolerance and Prejudice is wrong. If something is "sacred" then it shouldn't even be a political issue, it should be a Religious issue and that's between you and your god (with maybe your priest).

Ozy

I have found that those who make such quotes carry a double edged sword that cuts the bearer just as much as the opponent.

Really, do you thing that marriage is considered any less sacred to the "Say No to 8" crowd than it is to the "Say Yes to 8" crowd. Seriously, religion is the set of values that frames ones world views, how ones interprets his environment. Everyone has a religion, even athiests. More to the point Laws are simply the enforced values of the vocal majority. As I said before, politics is about turning Values (what you refer to as the Sacred) into Law. If one does not seek to express and thereby protect his values that are ultimately framed by his religious views, then one will eventually see the Law turned against his religious values by those who do.

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't see anything that prevents gays or lesbians from marrying. Legally, a gay man or lesbian woman can still marry someone of the opposite sex, so their rights aren't being infringed whatsoever.

Uh, what?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Similarly, gays and non-gays are equally restricted from marrying someone of the same sex, so the rights are again being treated equally under the law.

There is NO discrimination in the law or the amendment.

You're seriously trying to make this argument? That a group of people, who are defined by their romantic choices, are not having their rights infringed because they can always make different romantic choices? So what your saying, as I understand it, is that anyone who claims homosexuality can simply choose to be heterosexual?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Now there may be disporportionate impact. But that's no different than noting how childless people overpay taxes that primarily support schools, or car-less people overpay taxes that fund roads.

Actually, it is very different. Everyone pays those taxes. As it stands only homosexual people are barred from accessing the tax breaks inherent in marriage. There is significant difference between requirement and privilege.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Certainly, one can make a similar arguement for/against polygamy. If a man loves 2 women, and they love him, why can't he legally marry them both?

And given that families generally love one another, if a parent loves their child (of legally emancipable age), why can't they legally marry?

Clearly, those other civil "rights" are still not being properly supported, and anybody who argues against polygamy or incest must be some kind of evil monster...

Except there are other factors. Polygamy tends to be exploitative, and a similar stigma comes with incest.

Human stigma is based on popular oppinion, which is notoriously fickle. Moreover, stastically, I haven't seen polygamy or incest to be any more exploitative than homosexuality. Also, while there is a chance that incest could lead to a malformed child, there is a greater chance that the child will be born healthy. Accordingly, why should these groups, which are considered aborant behaviour by those who support homosexuality, be espoused anyless than homosexuality.

wyomingfox wrote:
Human stigma is based on popular oppinion, which is notoriously fickle. Moreover, stastically, I haven't seen polygamy or incest to be any more exploitative than homosexuality. Also, while there is a chance that incest could lead to a malformed child, there is a greater chance that the child will be born healthy. Accordingly, why should these groups, which are considered aborant behaviour by those who support homosexuality, be espoused anyless than homosexuality.

Incest, in so far as JohnHwangDD raised it (parent to child) is predisposed to exploitation in that one partner in the agreement is instrumental in the other's formation of free will. Polygamy has a long history of exploitative tendencies for similar reasons; as it tends to feature the marriage of an older man to multiple woman under the age of consent. It does not have to be a negative relationship, but then neither does the one between a prostitute and her pimp. Moreover, a polygamist can still be married and receive the same rights as any other married couple; there is no bonus in the tax code for having more than one spouse.

Either way, there is a profound difference between popular opinion and human stigma. The vast majority of the country disapproves of the Bush Presidency, but there will still be a much larger portion that votes for the GOP ticket. Why? Because mythos (the driving force of stigma) often matters more than opinion, and they see the GOP as the party that benefits them; even if current evidence is strongly to the contrary.

Incest, in so far as JohnHwangDD raised it (parent to child) is predisposed to exploitation in that one partner in the agreement is instrumental in the other's formation of free will.

In that case yes, but that represents only a small % of incest which is usually cousin to cousin, thus lacking such a predisposition.

Polygamy has a long history of exploitative tendencies for similar reasons; as it tends to feature the marriage of an older man to multiple woman under the age of consent. It does not have to be a negative relationship, but then neither does the one between a prostitute and her pimp.

What are we talking about here historical or modern? Up until the last 300 years, the age of consent for both men and women was considered to be at adolescents, which in general put women at the age of 12. As for modern, the actual cases in which a polygamist marries a woman under the age of consent is in the minority. Moreover, underaged marriage is regulated by a separate law.

Moreover, a polygamist can still be married and receive the same rights as any other married couple; there is no bonus in the tax code for having more than one spouse.

Homosexuals want the term "marriage" to apply to thier relationships. This is a sacred principle to them that they desire. Moreover, they want there behaviors to be viewed as normal. Actually, it is more than just that; they want people to stop saying that thier behavior is abnormal. This is what they are fighting so feverish for. Getting tax rights? That is just a bonus.

Either way, there is a profound difference between popular opinion and human stigma. The vast majority of the country disapproves of the Bush Presidency, but there will still be a much larger portion that votes for the GOP ticket. Why? Because mythos (the driving force of stigma) often matters more than opinion, and they see the GOP as the party that benefits them; even if current evidence is strongly to the contrary.

Stigma is oppinion. You see there are three types of people who are voting for McCain. One group is voting because they actually liked Bush's presendency and think McCain is the closest canidate to another 4 years. The other group is voting because they see McCain as being different than Bush in several areas that they opposed, while similar in areas they supported. The third group is voting because they feel (based on past voting records) that the democratic party in general will repress thier values, so they are willing to take the lesser of two evils.

dogma wrote:You're seriously trying to make this argument?

So what your saying, as I understand it, is that anyone who claims homosexuality can simply choose to be heterosexual?

Well, you're doing a terrible job at trying to refute it.

No, I'm saying that homos have the same legal right as heteros to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that right is not infringed.

dogma wrote:Actually, it is very different. Everyone pays those taxes. As it stands only homosexual people are barred from accessing the tax breaks inherent in marriage. There is significant difference between requirement and privilege.

No, they aren't. If they want to gain the benefits, they can marry someone of the opposite sex and gain them, just like anyone else.

dogma wrote:Except there are other factors. Polygamy tends to be exploitative, and a similar stigma comes with incest.

Nomoreso than inherent with homosexuality.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Well, you're doing a terrible job at trying to refute it.

No, I'm saying that homos have the same legal right as heteros to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that right is not infringed.

Homosexuals define themselves by their preference of romantic partners. By saying that they can simply choose to marry a person of the opposite sex you are saying they can simply choose to forfeit that part of their identity. That is exactly the same as saying they can just choose to be straight.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, they aren't. If they want to gain the benefits, they can marry someone of the opposite sex and gain them, just like anyone else.

Oh, I am sorry, but you are very, very wrong. There is massive difference between taxing a privilege, and rewarding a privilege. Under property tax law anyone who owns property pays for the privilege of doing so. Under current marriage laws straight couples are granted a privileged status. In the past marriage tax-breaks were awarded because it was though that the traditional family was far and away the best environment for a child to grow up in; a balanced, and loving home. However if you want to make the case that it is simply a legal right, divorced from any emotional consideration, then there should be no reason for awarding the break at all.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nomoreso than inherent with homosexuality.

So, wait, gay couples are exploitative? When did this happen?

This thread seems like one where I could have been misconstrued (or overreacted) and gotten into a heated discussion. How did I miss it? Now I feel sad.

wyomingfox wrote:
In that case yes, but that represents only a small % of incest which is usually cousin to cousin, thus lacking such a predisposition.

I'm willing to concede that. Truth be told, I'm not particularly concerned with incest as I suspect the fact that it isn't an issue has a lot to do with the relatively low incidence of it.

wyomingfox wrote:
What are we talking about here historical or modern? Up until the last 300 years, the age of consent for both men and women was considered to be at adolescents, which in general put women at the age of 12. As for modern, the actual cases in which a polygamist marries a woman under the age of consent is in the minority. Moreover, underaged marriage is regulated by a separate law.

I was speaking historically. But again, I am willing to concede the point because to me it isn't really part of the issue. Just because one group is denied rights it does not follow that denying rights is acceptable.

wyomingfox wrote:
Homosexuals want the term "marriage" to apply to thier relationships. This is a sacred principle to them that they desire. Moreover, they want there behaviors to be viewed as normal. Actually, it is more than just that; they want people to stop saying that thier behavior is abnormal. This is what they are fighting so feverish for. Getting tax rights? That is just a bonus.

I think it has more to do with having access to the same term as straight couples. It isn't so much sacred, as it is equality. I'm willing to bet that a push to remove the term 'marriage' from the legal lexicon would find traction in the gay community,

wyomingfox wrote:
Stigma is oppinion. You see there are three types of people who are voting for McCain. One group is voting because they actually liked Bush's presendency and think McCain is the closest canidate to another 4 years. The other group is voting because they see McCain as being different than Bush in several areas that they opposed, while similar in areas they supported. The third group is voting because they feel (based on past voting records) that the democratic party in general will repress thier values, so they are willing to take the lesser of two evils.

Stigma is not an opinion. Stigma is a social force. Stigma transcends individual judgments by forcing people to weigh choices in light of how they believe others will see them. The McCain analogy was meant to be a very general one. Admittedly, it was a poor choice.

Ahtman wrote:This thread seems like one where I could have been misconstrued (or overreacted) and gotten into a heated discussion. How did I miss it? Now I feel sad.

Don't worry, it looks like I'm doing it for you.

dogma wrote:Homosexuals define themselves by their preference of romantic partners. By saying that they can simply choose to marry a person of the opposite sex you are saying they can simply choose to forfeit that part of their identity. That is exactly the same as saying they can just choose to be straight.

Given the sheer number of arranged marriages in the world, along with the divorce rate for romantic marriages, I can't say that the definition makes much difference. Given that a large portion of defining onself as human is one's ability to control one's animal instincts, yeah, people probably can choose to be straight. After all, you can't claim instinct as an excuse for rape.

dogma wrote:Under current marriage laws straight couples are granted a privileged status. In the past marriage tax-breaks were awarded because it was though that the traditional family was far and away the best environment for a child to grow up in; a balanced, and loving home. However if you want to make the case that it is simply a legal right, divorced from any emotional consideration, then there should be no reason for awarding the break at all.

Except, not all married couples enjoy a tax break. Many suffer a marriage penalty.

As a society, we choose those behaviors to reward, and those to discourage. Requiring marriage between a man and a woman seems reasonable, as does rewarding such behavior. That's rational.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nomoreso than inherent with homosexuality.

So, wait, gay couples are exploitative? When did this happen?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Given the sheer number of arranged marriages in the world, along with the divorce rate for romantic marriages, I can't say that the definition makes much difference. Given that a large portion of defining onself as human is one's ability to control one's animal instincts, yeah, people probably can choose to be straight. After all, you can't claim instinct as an excuse for rape.

Because rape is predatory. Moreover, why should they choose to be straight? What benefit does that have to society?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except, not all married couples enjoy a tax break. Many suffer a marriage penalty.

As a society, we choose those behaviors to reward, and those to discourage. Requiring marriage between a man and a woman seems reasonable, as does rewarding such behavior. That's rational.

True, because marriage tax breaks have their origins in the economic inequality between members of different sexes. And, if marriage isn't advantageous, what use if there in prohibiting a given group access to it?

What makes the requirement rational, as specifically opposed to any other requirement?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
You said it, not me. I simply say that homosexuality carries a stigma comparable to polygamy / incest.

Nah, that isn't what you said. This is what you said:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Dogma wrote:
Except there are other factors. Polygamy tends to be exploitative, and a similar stigma comes with incest.

Nomoreso than inherent with homosexuality.

How does that not indicate that homosexuality is predatory?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Indeed, homosexuality historically has very low acceptance, like bestiality (ref. Leviticus).

Historically, polygamy is widely accepted and practiced. The Special Characters of the Bible invariably have multiple wives, and this is generally an aspirational sign of wealth and power. No stigma there!

Yep, and the ancient Greeks looked on homosexuality as the only true expression of love. Read a little Plato, it speaks as fondly of man-love as the Bible does negatively.

Yea, I'm gonna add something else. Are you suggesting that stigma, the irrational characterization of a certain choice, should be reflected in legislation? Because that sounds an awful lot like bigotry to me.

If it is possible to deny one's instincts and behave homosexually or heterosexually as a rational choice, perhaps we should persuade people in nations which have a very high birth rate to "swap sides". It would be a good way of reducing excessive population growth.

Centurian99 wrote:

budro wrote:
The majority of american voters are much more moderate then either party would like them to be. But since the rabid left and right both raise more money and make more noise, that's what you hear about all the time. Which leads to choosing the lesser of two evils for the average voter.

Hey, it takes a certain amount of passion to stay involved in political matters. Which leads to the loudest voices being the most out there, generally.

Although I've always found the idea of the "average voter" to be somewhat laughable. It makes it easy for the Mainstream Media to pontificate, but I think it has very little to do with actually winning elections.

Let me set up a RAW discussion on the average voter: (this is totally tounge in cheek btw)

1) The average American is an idiot (there are more people on the lower end of the intelligence scale in a large group of people then there are geniuses, so the mean is skewed towards the idiot side).

2) You have to be American to vote in American elections.

Therefore the average voter in America is an idiot.

Politicians can court the far right and far left all they want, but if they don't win the moderate centrist vote, they can't win the electoral college. The moderate voter usually has both conservative and liberal viewpoints on social, military, economic, and governement issues (some lean more one way on say governement invovlement while leaning the other way on taxation for example). This election is a good example - democrats have recently been viewed more favorably when the economy is in the tank while republican candidates gain more votes from the middle when national security is the bigger issue.

With the gains in majority in Congress + the Executive branch, the Democrats have the opportunity to do a lot of things. It remains to be seen whether the moderate leaning congressmen can reign in the more radical members of their party. Otherwise in two years we will quickly see a return to gridlock.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Given how much the Yes on 8 crowd also spent, it obviously means an awful lot to some very deep-pocketed people.

As for intolerance and prejudice, to compare gay marriage with civil rights makes a mockery of the civil rights movement. Gays have the same civil rights and restrictions as anyone else.

I don't see anything that prevents gays or lesbians from marrying. Legally, a gay man or lesbian woman can still marry someone of the opposite sex, so their rights aren't being infringed whatsoever.

Similarly, gays and non-gays are equally restricted from marrying someone of the same sex, so the rights are again being treated equally under the law.

There is NO discrimination in the law or the amendment.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen from you. So when it was illegal for Blacks and Whites to marry, that wasn't an infringement on their civil rights because they were free to marry someone of the same race?

And don't start with the slippery slope arguments. Those are fallacies for a reason.

Unfortunately, it looks like the majority of California is as anti-gay as you are, Prop 8 seems to have passed.