But that's OK, Obama should take NJ pretty easily without your vote. But, those of you voting in CO, IA, NM, NV, MO, NH, VA, FL or especially OH will not get off so easy - If you haven't learned that every vote matters, go watch Recount again!
Do some research on the Libertarians, and you'll have you're answer. No doubt, the man is principled and honest, but some of his policy stances leave much to be desired. For example, he would not give places like Burma a dime for aid relief (or any other country for that matter), and would do nothing to prevent genocide in other countries. He's an isolationist. Many of his supporters, when pressed on the issue say, "Who cares about those countries, that's their problem."
Yeah- Isolationism is a bit of a strange one, I mean since the iraq and afghan wars I have been leaning more towards it, but I do feel it is the obligations of richer and 'free-er' nations to help where they can, But this is what the U.N is suspose to be there for but all in all is pretty pathetic. It comes back down to a matter of trust, what this administration and my own govenment have down with Iraq and Afghanistan will take a long time to heal and for the public to trust their govenments again. I can see why Isolationism right about now would seem like a good idea but the our countrys do have an important responisbility to the rest of the world.
I half agree. I mean, it is their country, and their politicians need to step up. Withrawing troops will weed out most of the fake politicians, and the ones who care will stay behind and get things done, I think. But we should still care. It's not like we can clean our hands of the problem either, since "we" went in there in the first place.
I really dont know to be honest- I mean has 'Regime change' ever worked? There do always seem to be ulterior motives that come into it, especially when essientially it is one of our western govenments who gets to pick who is gonna run the country in question. I mean most europen countries and obviously the U.S have had pleanty of revolutions and civil wars in their history, and it is a fact that the people are always going to out number the ruling elite so maybe it is the responsiblities of these countrys to sort their own shit out, I mean thats how we have done it. Does it make it any different that it is in the 21st century, I mean obviously the weapons are different but so are communication devices. It seems both sides of the argument make strong points. I do get my political philosophies from you tube though! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8
Ron Paul is insane. He's a racist and a big time homophobe among other things. He used to edit and publish a slew of hard core ring wing newsletters (many of which bore his name) that ranted about all sorts of really dodgy nasty stuff. I can't remember exactly, but now that I think about it, I'm sure I caught the link from here somewhere... I decided to search: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca I have read some other stuff about him that seems to support a lot of this. Plus Libertarians are a confused bunch of people anyway. I always think Bill O'Reilly when I think Libertarian.
Yeah, I figured out that Ron Paul probably wasn't a candidate I'd agree with when most of the people carrying Ron Paul signs around my town were white supremacists. Bob Barr, on the other hand, I can get behind, somewhat. He's been a vehement critic of the Patriot Act, but on the other hand, he was a big proponent of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Wow- maybe Ron Paul isnt the candidate for me, I find you should never trust somebody with 2 first names anyways.
Yeah, that's the way I felt about it. The first time in decades the constitution would be amended to prevent people from doing something rather than granting or clarifying a right. I'm surprised the Libertarians took him, but I guess they wanted someone high profile.
1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. 2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. from wikipedia
Yep, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act It was followed up by the Marriage Protection Act of 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act Personally, I think that everyone in America should be able to form civil unions with whomever and as many adults as they want and get the benefits that go along with it, and leave marriage to the religious institutions that care about that sort of thing. Unfortunately, like the gun issue, it's not that simple to untangle everything.
That is so not like the gun issue. This is a basic human right issue. Having the power to kill someone, isn't a basic human right. Falling in love and being with whoever you want is. That is disgusting. Has that been passed? Does it really stand a chance? I am revolted... and saddened... and angry.... what a bunch of fucking dickheads!
Right now the issue has died down somewhat. The states have been voting on it and deciding accordingly. George Takei just got married to his boyfriend in California. What's it like in England? Can two people of the same gender get married?
What really gets me about things like the Defense of Marriage Act is that the act it's trying to prevent doesn't affect anyone other than those that are part of the act. It's like outlawing nose-picking because you think it's disgusting. I don't get how someones gay marriage could have an effect on another couples hetero marriage.
