The Coming Election

[biinlou]

Just wondered, what candidate, in the coming presidential election, is best qualified to ensure the continuation of expanded LGBT rights, while maintaining a strong military. I am preparing a paper on this subject and would appreciate any input from our group.


Thanks,


Biinlou

[DuckiesDarling]

I gotta say Obama, strictly from the standpoint that most of the Republican candidates have signed the Marriage Pact, a pledge to try and make it a constitutional amendment to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.


I can't see someone that would deny same sex couples the right to marry as any great champion of LGBT rights.:2cents:

[biinlou]

Yes, I totally agree. I am an Independent voter but a registered Republican. I have the highest respect for those that have served our country and it worries me that the current administration is closing and consolidating many of our our overseas and state military bases . The best way to get into a war is to be unprepared, as has been demonstrated time and again throughout history. Ensuring social rights is important, but I dont want to do it at the expense of another war. There seem to be no good choices in the up-coming election.




I gotta say Obama, strictly from the standpoint that most of the Republican candidates have signed the Marriage Pact, a pledge to try and make it a constitutional amendment to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.


I can't see someone that would deny same sex couples the right to marry as any great champion of LGBT rights.:2cents:

[darkeyes]

Whats far more important than having a strong military is getting the economy right.. u can have one and not the other, but spending outrageously on huge military complex can and does harm the general shape of the economy and create very considerable social problems internally.. that it can be a boost to the economy is true but in time unless the overall economy is right will prove a drain which, as occurred in the old Soviet union, will cause inevitable collapse and potentially wreck social cohesion.. many nations maintain huge militaries but at the expense of much social and economic deprivation... North Korea being one such example..

It is a huge leap simply to link two such diverse issues and ask anyone to select their preferred candidate based on such a sparse and if I may so inadequate a field of issues.. apart from the economy, there are the hugely important areas of environment, conservation, culture, social structure, human rights, justice and so much else people will wish to consider..

I have no idea what you have in mind, but based on simply two such diverse issues such as lgbt rights and retaining a strong miltary such a paper would be massively flawed and almost worthless.. certainly I speak as a pacifist and one who is anti military and also not American but that does not make what I say any the less valid..

[biinlou]

Great points and much appreaciated!



Whats far more important than having a strong military is getting the economy right.. u can have one and not the other, but spending outrageously on huge military complex can and does harm the general shape of the economy and create very considerable social problems internally.. that it can be a boost to the economy is true but in time unless the overall economy is right will prove a drain which, as occurred in the old Soviet union, will cause inevitable collapse and potentially wreck social cohesion.. many nations maintain huge militaries but at the expense of much social and economic deprivation... North Korea being one such example..

It is a huge leap simply to link two such diverse issues and ask anyone to select their preferred candidate based on such a sparse and if I may so inadequate a field of issues.. apart from the economy, there are the hugely important areas of environment, conservation, culture, social structure, human rights, justice and so much else people will wish to consider..

I have no idea what you have in mind, but based on simply two such diverse issues such as lgbt rights and retaining a strong miltary such a paper would be massively flawed and almost worthless.. certainly I speak as a pacifist and one who is anti military and also not American but that does not make what I say any the less valid..

[biinlou]

Also, socioeconomic and military issues are highly intertwined. World War 2 was in part, started because of this.

Poland for example had been a haven for many of the worlds oppressed minorities, including the the Jews, Gypsies, and other fragmented, disenfranchised groups. In the 1400's, for several 100 years, the the Catholic Church provided a safe sanctuary for these oppressed groups. ( The Jews in particular, had been blamed for the black plague in Europe and were forced to find new lands in Poland, safe from oppression.)

After World War One, Britan, France, and many other European countries and the US adpoted a pacifist attitude and refused to keep their military industrial complex up to date. This was due in large part to the horrific loss of life suffered in the first World War; 10 million people killed on all sides invloved in the first World War. (50 million were lost in the second world war. 20 million of these were Russian.)

When Hitler came to power in 1931, and when he subsequently invaded Poland in 1939, it was because of his hatred of a minority, the jews, that in part, drove him to start another world war. The ease of his initial success, in the west and then in the east, was because of the pacifist, ill prepared allled governments, that failed to maintain strong up-to-date armed forces. As most know Jews, Communists, Slavs Gypsies and Homonsexuals as well as other "undesirables" were at the top of his list for extermination. The use of force to fight these evils will always be a last, but important option.

So, when you say that "a paper based on two such diverse issues as lgbt rights and maintaing a strong military would be massively flawed and worthless", ignores historical fact and misses the point that the government is charged with the responsibility of protecting the rights of all of it's citizens, regardless of race, gender, religious affiliation or sexual preference. Sometimes this requires actions, inclulding war, that protect a nations citizens. I am not sure that our current presidential candidates are sincerely prepared to protect what what our constitution stands for. Listen to them. It's the same old same ole things from all parties.




Whats far more important than having a strong military is getting the economy right.. u can have one and not the other, but spending outrageously on huge military complex can and does harm the general shape of the economy and create very considerable social problems internally.. that it can be a boost to the economy is true but in time unless the overall economy is right will prove a drain which, as occurred in the old Soviet union, will cause inevitable collapse and potentially wreck social cohesion.. many nations maintain huge militaries but at the expense of much social and economic deprivation... North Korea being one such example..

It is a huge leap simply to link two such diverse issues and ask anyone to select their preferred candidate based on such a sparse and if I may so inadequate a field of issues.. apart from the economy, there are the hugely important areas of environment, conservation, culture, social structure, human rights, justice and so much else people will wish to consider..

I have no idea what you have in mind, but based on simply two such diverse issues such as lgbt rights and retaining a strong miltary such a paper would be massively flawed and almost worthless.. certainly I speak as a pacifist and one who is anti military and also not American but that does not make what I say any the less valid..

[darkeyes]

Lou I am not arguing for or against having a militray complex of any kind.. I am simply responding to what u asked.. I could argue from the viewpoint of a pacifist how just about any war could have been avoided and how Hitler could have been prevented from beginning a war.. but that isnt what u asked.. having a military complex can and often does aid an economy I dont deny that, but equally so could channelling the resources spent on the military into other areas.. but you didnt ask that either.. my point remains.. no one can be expected seriously to make a decision on who to support in an election based on so scant a list of issues.. that some people will is undeniable, but my point is that there are far more issues than just these which people should consider before deciding how to voote..

[biinlou]

Agreed and my I'm drving my class nuts with this assignment. It makes one think and that's what I love about my profession. Thanks for your insight.





Lou I am not arguing for or against having a militray complex of any kind.. I am simply responding to what u asked.. I could argue from the viewpoint of a pacifist how just about any war could have been avoided and how Hitler could have been prevented from beginning a war.. but that isnt what u asked.. having a military complex can and often does aid an economy I dont deny that, but equally so could channelling the resources spent on the military into other areas.. but you didnt ask that either.. my point remains.. no one can be expected seriously to make a decision on who to support in an election based on so scant a list of issues.. that some people will is undeniable, but my point is that there are far more issues than just these which people should consider before deciding how to voote..

[softfruit]

Running a year-on-year budget deficit above the rate of growth will destroy a nation economically in the long term. As such cutting military spending, indeed all government expenditure now is perhaps essential to be able to spend on military infrastructure in years to come rather than have all government revenue directed to repaying debts.

LGBT rights, on the other hand, mostly have very little in the way of cost implications.

So underpinning all of this is a more important question: are you voting for what it would do to a country in the next 4 years or the next 100? And what do you think will happen to the normal rate of growth? My instinct is that thanks to peak oil growth in coming decades will ease down to perhaps 0%-1% a year instead of 3%-4%, with a long-term knock-on effect on governments that run deficit budgets.

[fredtyg]

Past two term Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, was one of the first to seek the Republican nomination for Governor but left that race when he wasn't allowed into the debates. He's now seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for President and will likely get it.

He's the only candidate with no problem supporting same sex marriage. He scored highest of all candidates on the ACLU's recent "Report on Civil Liberties (http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf)" (warning: pdf file) with Ron Paul coming in second and Obama coming in third.

He has both a campaign web site (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/) and Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/groups/garyjohnson2012/).

[Briar Rose]

Guns versus Butter is a basic economic principle. The more a nation spends on butter; the less the nation has to spend on guns. And vice versa. We have limited resources. It's only one planet folks. We are always going to have to balance where we expend those resources. Endless upward financial growth is an illusion, unsustainable in the very long term.

That said, we as a people here in the US seem to have fallen into the habit of setting up false extremes. We do not have to spend only on butter or only on guns. It's a balance of tensions. In my opinion, recently we have spent too much on guns and not enough on butter. But that's my opinion and clearly yours is not the same. The difference is if we both believe in that balance, we are open to negotiate a compromise.

The hard part of compromise, particularly in basic issues such as the expenditure of resources, is that no one will be completely happy with the outcome. Something apparently US Americans have a hard time with--we seem to always want a winner.

I just don't see people, including politicians, thinking in terms of compromise in this country right now.

In terms of civil rights, countries with rigid views and totalitarian governments have historically been exclusive rather than inclusive. That means they practice social prejudice as open public policy, often in ways that cannot be considered as anything other than evil. When the "other" is not a member of the tribe, humans often, very often, dehumanize the "others". These are generally governments who spend lots on guns and their trappings and very little on butter.

So, I really want that balance of tensions and a movement away from extreme views whether economic or social because I don't like the implications. I will vote Obama. I will hold my nose because his economic team is basically the same as George Bush's, and those are the people who get us into this mess in the first place, but the man believes in the middle ground.

[12voltman59]

The thing about the coming cuts in the US "defense" budget-----we are still going to be the largest military in the world and we will still be spending more on "defense" than the next 13 countries combined.

When it comes back to the OP's question about what candidate would do the most for GLBT rights----I don't think that there is any question that Obama would do "the most" in favor of such rights---he surely did away with DADT in the services and is in favor of undoing the Federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) policies.

All of those who are running for the Republican presidential nomination have expressed a desire to limit GLBT rights by doing things such as rolling back the removal of DADT, undoing by whatever manner possible the moves in some states to allow same sex marriage, seeking a Constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and things of that nature----the most extreme like Rick Santorum are on record saying they would like to see a return to making homosexual activity illegal with very serious criminal sanctions for anyone who engages in homosexual sex acts.

Even though they are not running for president---there are those on the far right who do favor the idea of imposition of the death penalty for homosexuals.

From this perspective---if a person were to vote for president strictly on this one issue alone---the case is clear---if one favors "gay rights" then they would have to vote for Obama and if one is in favor of restrictions on gay rights---then such a person would have to vote for which ever of the Republicans running who gets the nomination because they all have expressed their goal to at the very least, re-impose restrictions and limits on the rights of GLBT people if not eliminate them entirely and make life very difficult and hazardous for anyone who is not a good and pure, heterosexual.

[void()]

From what I see, there are only two classes. We got the haves and the have nots. Those whom have will continue having and go out of their way to ensure that. Those whom have not will continue being oppressed by the haves. If you're unfortunate and born into the have not class, there is no changing anything. I believe this as a truth more and more each day, albeit a sad truth.

There is another way, another truth. People do not want to hear it. They do not want to think about it. It is a truth the same as the above regardless of people's disparagement. We have enough. We have more than enough for everyone, and then some. The whole concept of limited resources is malarkey dreamt up by the haves in order to create foundations for control.

"If there are only finite resources, then we can have wars to thin populations, wars to falsely stimulate economy, commerce. We manufacture the problem and solution. You need more food? Be a slave and you might get kibbles."

Human beings are capital to the haves, they need workers because they darn sure won't lift a finger to wipe their own butts. Why should they? They have control, they can hire or fire anyone. Orwell was pretty spot on.

The other way is one I have mentioned before. Take a look at The Venus Project. It may not be perfect, makes no claims to be. What is offered is a different way to think, a different way to live. You live in harmony with nature. We (all human beings and industries) produce more than enough to feed everyone currently. We have been at that point for quite a while too.

So, no I'm not voting. It serves no purpose. Many will say it does. They got you snowballed but good. It's all an illusion made up like an onion. Start peeling back the layers, you'll start to see what I mean. Just ask basic questions. Here's a big one.

1. Why am I here?

[shewolf50]

The way I see it it’s pretty much cut and dry, at this point I don’t think you’ll have your cake and eat it too. If you want more LGBT rites then vote DEM, if you want less LGBT rite and more war then vote Republican. As far as The Venus Project, sure let’s take the people out of one box and shove em into another. Just my :2cents:

[void()]

As far as The Venus Project, sure let’s take the people out of one box and shove em into another. Just my :2cents:

I am so glad you checked out the project. Further, I am so glad you can authoritatively debase hope. Now, I must fully re-access my opinion on everything, including the best colour of play putty. Good job! You have truly and well dashed me and my opinion into cataclysmic self doubt and loathing. Feel proud of yourself. I'm proud of you too! :)

[æonpax]

Just wondered, what candidate, in the coming presidential election, is best qualified to ensure the continuation of expanded LGBT rights, while maintaining a strong military. I am preparing a paper on this subject and would appreciate any input from our group.Thanks,
Biinlou

The GOP is running fools as presidential candidates and Obama and the Democrats are corporate tools. Now, given Obama ended DADT, if the LGBT’s agenda was one of national priority, he should get the vote. However, there are far greater issues in this election than just Gay rights, for example; the economy, civil rights, censorship, healthcare, foreign policy, immigration and abortion, that I see as more compelling than “Gay Marriage”, which is important to me but is overshadowed by these issues.

The tragic and misguided decision by SCOTUS on “Citizens United” has let loose a cash influx to both parties by the corporations, to such an extent that they have literally bought the votes of our elected representatives whose first duty is to their constituents.

I fully support the reduction of funding to the bloated and wasteful Pentagon.

Both Democrats and Republicans are party before country and drink out of the same corporate money trough. While I am somewhat liberal, I cannot support the Dems and will not support the Repubs. It's time for a third party.



http://i.imgur.com/sI18S.jpg

[darkeyes]

Both Democrats and Republicans are party before country and drink out of the same corporate money trough. While I am somewhat liberal, I cannot support the Dems and will not support the Repubs. It's time for a third party.[/SIZE][/FONT]



http://i.imgur.com/sI18S.jpg

Why stop at 3? A healthier democratic life would be one where there is a multi party system.. currently the 2 great mastadons which sit astride US politics stilt and smother proper democratic debate... within each party is a plethora of political opinion which is subsumed into a monstrous and corrupt monster and does not allow US politics to breath nor its democracy to prosper..

[Briar Rose]

I agree that Citizens United was the worst possible thing that could have happened. And yes, our entire government, both parties, has been sold to various high bidders.

I would sup with the devil to get big money and revolving door lobbying out of government in the US.

I think that this is the biggest issue of our day--the thing that nearly everyone but the most extreme of the lunatic fringe can agree on. If we, as a people can agree on that, then we can find a way to work together to rescue our representative democracy. Historically, when the vast majority of a people come together, the elites back off. Eventually, the cycle turns back around and the 1% have their way for a while. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

We can argue about social issues later. And I think the gridlock would lessen because politicians would be worried less about their war chests and more about pleasing their actual voting constituents. We might even be able to engage in a coherent policy towards remediating our physical and human infrastructure problems, including some spending cutting and some tax increases.

I would be happy to see one or more additional political parties.

GLBTQI issues--Definitely Obama. The D team fielded by the Republicans this year all have that foamy about the mouth thing going on in respect to GLBTQI civil rights.

[void()]

Why stop at 3? A healthier democratic life would be one where there is a multi party system.. currently the 2 great mastadons which sit astride US politics stilt and smother proper democratic debate... within each party is a plethora of political opinion which is subsumed into a monstrous and corrupt monster and does not allow US politics to breath nor its democracy to prosper..

Democracy in the U.S. is supposed to be multi-party, or was. It has become Republican & Democrat because of money. And anyone trying to set up another party has an untenable battle against the puritanical plutocratic party.

Such is why POTUS may censor questions put to him in a public forum after he asked Americans for them. One of the most popular questions has been regarding marijuana legalization. The POTUS & Co. declared such question/s and subject matter inappropriate despite pressing relevance.

If it were legalized a lot of direct economical benefit would be seen. As well we'd see many in prisons released whom were only there for having a toke, same as POTUS. But of course, it's inappropriate to call a spade a spade and a hypocrite a hypocrite and dese4rving of censorship.

Marijuana has other uses and applications aside from recreational use to mellow out. Its fibre can be used to make quite a strong rope, clothing, paper. It is also green growing plant in that it reduces the co2 footprint. Many other aspects exist which point to it being a veritable bottomless cash crop. But it is inappropriate to discuss empowering people through sustainable agriculture which marijuana growing would lead the way to.

It is inappropriate to discuss the stupidity of making it illegal for a farmer to grow more than 11 acres of wheat. The illegality arises that in aggregate the effects would stifle and destroy interstate commerce. Never mind the fact farmers are being self sufficient, self sustaining. It is inappropriate and censored.

Also inappropriate is discussion of cattle only able to handle a 17% protein diet. Cows were meant to feed on grass not corn. You are only supposed to grain feed right before market to offer a good slaughter weight, not feed wholly on grain. But we can't discuss the fact that pure grain feeding and processing factories introduces Ecoli and other antibiotic resistant viruses and diseases.

Inappropriate to discuss similar concerns in the poultry industry as well. We can't discuss the ability of corporations to patent genes, which lead to better yielding crops. What price though? Part of it is farmers that are forced to not farm, them farming would bring interstate commerce down due to aggregate surplus. Farmers no longer save seed to replant. You have to use the genetically altered stuff whether you want or not, otherwise be sued into oblivion.

Welcome to America, we used to be free.


I would sup with the devil to get big money and revolving door lobbying out of government in the US. We can argue about social issues later. And I think the gridlock would lessen because politicians would be worried less about their war chests and more about pleasing their actual voting constituents.

Exactly, we have gridlock from money. Stand up and offer different ways to think, different forms of doing because of doing without, different types of hope and you're branded un-American, terrorist, enemy combatant. Seems to me We were founded upon being different. Funny it all comes back to money.

[darkeyes]

Historically, when the vast majority of a people come together, the elites back off.

Historically they dont... they bite back and surrender nowt without a struggle.. why else do u think most countries have some form of authoratarian rule and those which have systems of representative democracy we find the major parties in thrall to some elite or other.. often in thrall to the same elite..

[darkeyes]

Democracy in the U.S. is supposed to be multi-party, or was. It has become Republican & Democrat because of money. And anyone trying to set up another party has an untenable battle against the puritanical plutocratic party.

Such is why POTUS may censor questions put to him in a public forum after he asked Americans for them. One of the most popular questions has been regarding marijuana legalization. The POTUS & Co. declared such question/s and subject matter inappropriate despite pressing relevance.

If it were legalized a lot of direct economical benefit would be seen. As well we'd see many in prisons released whom were only there for having a toke, same as POTUS. But of course, it's inappropriate to call a spade a spade and a hypocrite a hypocrite and dese4rving of censorship.

Marijuana has other uses and applications aside from recreational use to mellow out. Its fibre can be used to make quite a strong rope, clothing, paper. It is also green growing plant in that it reduces the co2 footprint. Many other aspects exist which point to it being a veritable bottomless cash crop. But it is inappropriate to discuss empowering people through sustainable agriculture which marijuana growing would lead the way to.

It is inappropriate to discuss the stupidity of making it illegal for a farmer to grow more than 11 acres of wheat. The illegality arises that in aggregate the effects would stifle and destroy interstate commerce. Never mind the fact farmers are being self sufficient, self sustaining. It is inappropriate and censored.



Exactly, we have gridlock from money. Stand up and offer different ways to think, different forms of doing because of doing without, different types of hope and you're branded un-American, terrorist, enemy combatant. Seems to me We were founded upon being different. Funny it all comes back to money.

This country has an electoral system which was designed precisely to maintain a two party system.. for several hundred years it did precisiely that until the advent of Irish Nationalism in the 19th century which was a particualr case.. but not until the advent of organised labour in the late 19th century and early 20th was the two party domination broken.. but for some decades it was a 3 party system which reverted essentially to a 2 party system for 20 years or so after the election of 1945, with the once powerful liberals reduced to a rump of as few as 5 seats in the Commons and completely supplanted by Labour as the party of progressive change..

..but from the 1960's onward, dissatisfaction with the 2 (or 3 party system) has exploded and there are now a number of smaller parties in the house and our democracy has been devolved to allow in 3 of the 4 countries of the union more control over their affairs aay from the historical dominance of the present centralised over bearing duopoly of the present two elite parties.. Conservative, the party of privilege.. and Labour.. the party of well.. God knows what nowadays...

British democracy is still not healthy, but it is less unhealthy than it was because of the changes to the way we run the state and 3 of the 4 constituent nations, but mainly because every year more people ask questions of the big 2, and express dissatisfaction with what they do and what they stand for.. better education and communication has helped in this, and it was always inevitable that the 2 party system would become multi-party.. retaining the present electoral system allows the 2 major parties to still dominate our politics in an unhealthy way, and in time this must change, but such are the changes in this state and the countries which are affiliated, that change will continue and more parties will in time develop and have some success.. but here now, there are other options for people to vote for and that can only be a far more healthy and democratic thing than what existed until a few short decades ago...

Breaking a corrupt two party system is rarely something which can be achieved overnight, but it is something desirable and essential if we are to have a healthy democracy.. it is impossible for the whole range of opinion and thought to be wholly represented and progressed with such a small choice.. indeed in a representative democracy this can never be entirely achieved, but unless it has a plethora of parties of differing political opinion, it is arguable whether a democracy exists at all..

[void()]

Breaking a corrupt two party system is rarely something which can be achieved overnight, but it is something desirable and essential if we are to have a healthy democracy.. it is impossible for the whole range of opinion and thought to be wholly represented and progressed with such a small choice.. indeed in a representative democracy this can never be entirely achieved, but unless it has a plethora of parties of differing political opinion, it is arguable whether a democracy exists at all..

Agree with you but look at John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr.. As I stated, people can rise up and then be killed. I'm also reminded of a Spanish poet making a morbid comment. "They don't shoot poets." He was found the next day riddled with bullet wounds. Gives one pause for thought in expression of dissent.

[darkeyes]

Agree with you but look at John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr.. As I stated, people can rise up and then be killed. I'm also reminded of a Spanish poet making a morbid comment. "They don't shoot poets." He was found the next day riddled with bullet wounds. Gives one pause for thought in expression of dissent.

Don't expect me to encourage the killing of ne 1 Voidie even in order to achieve change, remove corruption and change the established order in pursuit of a decent way to run our world... civil disobedience by the people demands risk and I and others may fall and it even may fail, but after us come others who will learn and try again.. we die, whether in our beds or blockading the streets.. the idea lives on...

[void()]

Don't expect me to encourage the killing of ne 1 Voidie even in order to achieve change, remove corruption and change the established order in pursuit of a decent way to run our world... civil disobedience by the people demands risk and I and others may fall and it even may fail, but after us come others who will learn and try again.. we die, whether in our beds or blockading the streets.. the idea lives on...

No, do not expect you to encourage such. Am not directly saying that either. However, as point out we do die and certainly the haves would not have compunction against killing have nots.

At such impasse point then, only seems reasonable to fight fire with fire, pick up arms for yourself and fight. Not planning any such but even discussion of it merits added precaution.

[æonpax]

I agree that Citizens United was the worst possible thing that could have happened. And yes, our entire government, both parties, has been sold to various high bidders. I would sup with the devil to get big money and revolving door lobbying out of government in the US. I think that this is the biggest issue of our day--the thing that nearly everyone but the most extreme of the lunatic fringe can agree on. If we, as a people can agree on that, then we can find a way to work together to rescue our representative democracy. Historically, when the vast majority of a people come together, the elites back off. Eventually, the cycle turns back around and the 1% have their way for a while. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
We can argue about social issues later. And I think the gridlock would lessen because politicians would be worried less about their war chests and more about pleasing their actual voting constituents. We might even be able to engage in a coherent policy towards remediating our physical and human infrastructure problems, including some spending cutting and some tax increases.
I would be happy to see one or more additional political parties.
GLBTQI issues--Definitely Obama. The D team fielded by the Republicans this year all have that foamy about the mouth thing going on in respect to GLBTQI civil rights.

The "Citizen's United" ruling is or should be, the issue all can agree with, except for our elected officials and party zealots. Unfortunately, the political climate here has become so entrenched and adversarial, that many will deliberately cut off their nose, to spite their face.

There are remedies to this problem of corporate personhood and the flow of hundred of millions to the coffers of the political parties, but it's not easy nor simple. A labyrinth of different court decisions were used by SCOTUS to justify their ruling. This issue needs to be studied before action is taken.

Here is an excellent, albeit long and detailed, article about it; The hard truth about Citizens United - On the second anniversary of a terrible decision, every proposed solution has a downside. - http://www.salon.com/2012/01/21/the_hard_truth_of_citizens_united/

[biinlou]

Great insights offered here and very apparent that many people, to varying degrees, are fed up with the two party system.


Thanks!


Biinlou

[biinlou]

Yep so true.




The "Citizen's United" ruling is or should be, the issue all can agree with, except for our elected officials and party zealots. Unfortunately, the political climate here has become so entrenched and adversarial, that many will deliberately cut off their nose, to spite their face.

There are remedies to this problem of corporate personhood and the flow of hundred of millions to the coffers of the political parties, but it's not easy nor simple. A labyrinth of different court decisions were used by SCOTUS to justify their ruling. This issue needs to be studied before action is taken.

Here is an excellent, albeit long and detailed, article about it; The hard truth about Citizens United - On the second anniversary of a terrible decision, every proposed solution has a downside. - http://www.salon.com/2012/01/21/the_hard_truth_of_citizens_united/

[Light_and_Dark]

Alright people are not going to like what I have to say...

First I agree the military should remain strong in the U.S. so i really want to back a president looking to make it stronger(and about the budget well the military budget is not as grand as people make it out to be most of it is covered up and paying government pockets).

Second even though I do agree that a president should back LGBT rights I do believe the DADT should never have been overturned and something similar but more lenient needs to replace it. For those of you that do not understand feel free to ask me in private and I will explain...

Third marriage(the concept used today) is actually in and of itself (at least the american version) a christian ritual brought about by christians so should homosexuals be allowed to marry NO....now BEFORE anyone goes on a hell bent crusade to try and crucify me read my next sentence. I do belief that civil arrangements with the same legal ramifications of marriage should be put in place for the LGBT community. The American concept of marriage is something most heterosexual christians hold dear to themselves as part of their Religious beliefs. Marriage in general has been around for tens of thousands of years as Civil bondings...similar to what wiccans do as well as druids and other religions or even heathen etc...

Mind you this is my opinion on it if a president backed these along with ways to bring the jobs back from overseas and into the states I will be voting for him.

LOL

[darkeyes]

Second even though I do agree that a president should back LGBT rights I do believe the DADT should never have been overturned and something similar but more lenient needs to replace it. For those of you that do not understand feel free to ask me in private and I will explain...

Third marriage(the concept used today) is actually in and of itself (at least the american version) a christian ritual brought about by christians so should homosexuals be allowed to marry NO....now BEFORE anyone goes on a hell bent crusade to try and crucify me read my next sentence. I do belief that civil arrangements with the same legal ramifications of marriage should be put in place for the LGBT community. The American concept of marriage is something most heterosexual christians hold dear to themselves as part of their Religious beliefs. Marriage in general has been around for tens of thousands of years as Civil bondings...similar to what wiccans do as well as druids and other religions or even heathen etc...

.

LOL

I will not rubbish what u say because you plainly believe it and it is a view which u have the right to hold..... but marriage does predate Christianity as u have accepted but far more religiously ritualistic than u infer, and so for Christians to claim marriage as their own is a nonsense.. Christian marriage in the US is not so different from that in this country or other countries around the globe.. each Christian sect or denomination has its own rituals and its own way of marriage.. so what is the American way of marriage? I am sure the Jews of the US will agree that American marriage is Christian marriage and that as u appear to do, dismiss their's as nothing and that they are no longer married.....as will those of other religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.. the US is a secular state not a Christian one.. no religion can claim supremacy in a secular state... the secular claims supemacy over all religions in all but spiritual matters and that is as it must be.. the US may be one nation under God.. but whose God? The Christian one?

The state, the people and theirs elected representatives are the only ones who have the right to decide what marruage is.. and who can and cannot marry.. not the historical tyranny of church dogma.. one, any or all churches and by extension religions... that debate is long since passed and is settled.. not just in the US but in most progressive liberal democracies... it is a presumptious arrogance of those of any religion to claim any institution of humanity as its own when it belongs not to that or any religion, but to humanity itself.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/jan/30/john-sentamu-gay-marriage

[Light_and_Dark]

Dark eyes you present a good argument but did not fully read my post. The type of marriage most of the lgbt community are trying to get legalized is not the jewish marriage or any other then the christian marriage for the most vocal it is not the union they covet but the rights and religious sanctum. So to debate that the primary christian version of marriage is not what is being discussed is not to look at all the angles.

I did not state that the human rights to have their unions regarded with the same legality of what is viewed as the traditional christian marriage...This I have no problem with...as you read in my post other religions hold their own rights and sanctums...but on paper the state regards marriage as a christian act in most cases. It is the terminology of it. Legalizing LGBT MARRIAGE would make it a hate crime or discrimitory in the united states for any church to turn down a lgbt union which is that churches right but they would then be religiously oppressed to go through the approving motions if a lgbt couple wanted to marry at that church which is wrong.

To state that the US is a secular nation is to only look at the last 30 years of our society...yes america holds no allegiance to any ONE particular church but it still is a Christian nation until the religious majority changes.

Just remember I understand what you are stating about other religions holding their idea of marriage and their particular rights as legal under US law...but as it is those are the minority that have their type...

[darkeyes]

Dark eyes you present a good argument but did not fully read my post. The type of marriage most of the lgbt community are trying to get legalized is not the jewish marriage or any other then the christian marriage for the most vocal it is not the union they covet but the rights and religious sanctum. So to debate that the primary christian version of marriage is not what is being discussed is not to look at all the angles.

I did not state that the human rights to have their unions regarded with the same legality of what is viewed as the traditional christian marriage...This I have no problem with...as you read in my post other religions hold their own rights and sanctums...but on paper the state regards marriage as a christian act in most cases. It is the terminology of it. Legalizing LGBT MARRIAGE would make it a hate crime or discrimitory in the united states for any church to turn down a lgbt union which is that churches right but they would then be religiously oppressed to go through the approving motions if a lgbt couple wanted to marry at that church which is wrong.

To state that the US is a secular nation is to only look at the last 30 years of our society...yes america holds no allegiance to any ONE particular church but it still is a Christian nation until the religious majority changes.

Just remember I understand what you are stating about other religions holding their idea of marriage and their particular rights as legal under US law...but as it is those are the minority that have their type...

Some time after I posted, I read again what I'd said and did add to my post.. unfortunately I was 3 minutes out of time and it would not allow me to amend it. Time being what it was I was unable to add anything as a second post to what I said above..

What I wanted to add was this.. the state has no place in dictating to any religious institution what it shall believe and just who it will marry.. it has no place in deciding who it will conduct marriage ceremonies for.. certainly in my opinion this makes the church or other religious bodies in error, and is a discriminatory issue which is very difficult to overcome.... we can demand as a state that churches marry whomsoever the state demands.. that means anyone.. but that in itself is an infringement of the belief of whatever religious institution it is and is therefore an infringement I would argue against freedom of religion..

I do not argue that religious bodies be so forced to allow anyone to marry within the rules and spiritual beliefs of any institution.. I do argue such institutions do not own the concept of marriage.. yes in this country we have civil unions, but it is a discriminatory expression and as such considered by many not to be a real union of love between two people.. it is not in short, considered by many to be a real marriage.. it almost demeans the commitment and devotion which two people hve pledged to each other..even although civil union carries with it the same rights and responsibilities it is not considered real... this discrimination should be eliminated even if it is considered by some superficial and trivial, even some who are in civil unions... a civil union is a de facto civil marriage between two people.. a civil marriage is a union in law between two people.. a church marriage is religious and in this country at least, a civil union between two people.. the difference is tht in two of the three options, the first is called something differently because of the gender of the two people who enter the same institution.. just what is the problem of it being called and considered as marriage? That is discriminatory and should be erradicated in law, and also I would argue that it could be considered a hate crime...in fact I do consider it just that by those religious bodies which oppose it...

I am not an expert on the US constitution and civil rights.. but I doubt if refusal to conduct a same sex marriage in a church or religious institution could be considered a hate crime.. I doubt because of freedom of religion, while it is certainly discriminatory, but whether it would be considered discriminatory in law is quite another matter but that is not something I could say with absolute certainty.. if it can, as Bumble says, the law is a ass..the law is a idiot.. but others better qualified than you and I will make that judgement..

My argument is simple... neither the Church or any religious body owns the concept of marriage.. they do not own the word or its meaning.. it may have the right to refuse to marry some people, but it does not have the right to stop people being married.. whoever they are and whatever their gender.. that power resides in the state, its legislators and in theory at least.. most importantly its people....

[Light_and_Dark]

Well then maybe our ideas based on our areas are different. Here a majority of marriages taking place(even the ones outside the church) are based on the Christian concept of marriage(as me and you both agreed from my original post the concept of unions{not exactly marriage the word and meaning for marriage came about with the roman catholic church and is the religious upgrade to civil union} is far older then any currently know of.). Due to what it is based on the Christian group(not just the state) that originally instituted the ban on LGBT-marriage(along with any sex act other then missionary in florida look that law up it is almost amusing) are the ones fighting so that their belief can not be soiled in their eyes.

Do I believe that the LGBT community should have the right to express their relationships as civilians as easily as a heterosexual couple yes. Do I believe they have the right to add the romance to it that heteros add(big weddings etc etc) yes. Do I believe they have the right to use the word marriage in the legal and religious sense no. Not because they are less then heteros not because they are beneath or worse then. Not because they love their couple less merely because the current american legal and religious concept of marriage that the lgbt community is trying to gain use of is not out of love for their spouse. It is out of spite for the community that holds that belief.

A majority of them are the rabble rousers etc. Now if they went and petitioned for civil unions me...a hetero sexual man would be right up there with them lobbying for their rights for civil unions....or whatever they would want to call it. It is just coming into my belief system and trying to take something I consider sacred merely because you want my respect or you want to spite me is not going to make me peaceful towards you nor respectful towards you.

Now how civil unions are treated over their I do consider wrong....and I feel it is the christians that are the most detrimental to my belief system that are probably causing the most damage and disrespect on that front...For that I do apologize...but that means their is a working system but someone has to take a first step to improve how people view and believe in it not abolish it and strip other peoples rights away to get your way.(not saying you would want to do that but that is how most christians that are not ignorant view the attempt to take down the ban on gay MARRIAGE.)

About your reply it is fine as you said you went back and re read the post and understood where i was coming from a bit better and i do appreciate it one of the biggest causes of conflicts in any situation is a break down in communications or a misunderstanding of anothers meaning.