"Smaller government" advocates

[kaz]

I don't wonder why, I know why.

Everybody wants to be on the side that's winning. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you just wasted your vote. He or she has no chance of winning.

This is not to mention the fact that most people vote like me. I don't vote for a candidate because of their great ideas, I vote for my candidate to keep the other candidate out.

If Trump loses steam and runs on a third party ticket, I wouldn't vote for him and most of his current supporters wouldn't either. It's not that I'm in love with any of the other Republican candidates, it's that I really don't want to see Hillary in the White House again.

Love it or hate it, that's the way we do things in this country.

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......

It's ironic you didn't understand his post while you insulted his intelligence, LOL.

He was referring specifically to people who were opposed to Obama. I mean that was butt obvious ... if you could read what he was talking about ...

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......

It's ironic you didn't understand his post while you insulted his intelligence, LOL.

He was referring specifically to people who were opposed to Obama. I mean that was butt obvious ... if you could read what he was talking about ...

And even worse is you don't seem to have got what I said.....

 

[kaz]

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......

It's ironic you didn't understand his post while you insulted his intelligence, LOL.

He was referring specifically to people who were opposed to Obama. I mean that was butt obvious ... if you could read what he was talking about ...

And even worse is you don't seem to have got what I said.....

I get it now, I didn't realize you were going sheep on us. My bad. Of course, intelligent people want Marxists, gotcha.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......

It's ironic you didn't understand his post while you insulted his intelligence, LOL.

He was referring specifically to people who were opposed to Obama. I mean that was butt obvious ... if you could read what he was talking about ...

And even worse is you don't seem to have got what I said.....

I get it now, I didn't realize you were going sheep on us. My bad. Of course, intelligent people want Marxists, gotcha.

This seems to be all there is today, people making shit up and then trying to attack people with it. It's getting really boring. I think 'll go so something more interesting, like watch paint dry.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't wonder why, I know why.

Everybody wants to be on the side that's winning. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you just wasted your vote. He or she has no chance of winning.

This is not to mention the fact that most people vote like me. I don't vote for a candidate because of their great ideas, I vote for my candidate to keep the other candidate out.

If Trump loses steam and runs on a third party ticket, I wouldn't vote for him and most of his current supporters wouldn't either. It's not that I'm in love with any of the other Republican candidates, it's that I really don't want to see Hillary in the White House again.

Love it or hate it, that's the way we do things in this country.

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......

I don't even understand what in hell that's supposed to mean. What I said is that Republican voters stayed home because they didn't like Romney. They didn't want to get their coats on, drive through the snow, get to the voting booth and punch a hole for somebody they didn't even like.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well changing the status is regulating. If not, you would be able to get a divorce by chanting around an open fire pit and saying "divorce" three times.

Government didn't allow gay marriage--the Supreme court did. Government held votes that revealed society didn't want to accept gay marriages. The courts felt that voters should not have the right to make such decisions--the court should.

That's besides the fact no government ever disallowed gay marriages. If you wanted to get married to your "whatever" you simply found a religion willing to marry you, and you were married. Gay marriage had to do with government benefits......supposedly.

I see a distinction between "a relationship" and a "marriage". My relationship is what I do day to day. A marriage is merely the formality of being married and being able to get certain things from the government.

The Supreme Court happens to be 1/3rd of the US govt, by the way. Congress and the Presidency have accepted this. Mainly because Congress when through the process of writing the amendment and the states even ratified it, way back when. So, really, it's not just the Supreme Court anyway.

The people revealed they didn't want to accept gay marriage, the country was formed on the basis that individuals had rights and were protected from mob rule. Shocking, hey?

So, the principles of the country came through after 244 years, what is shocking is that it took that long.

No govt ever disallowed gay marriage. Not true. Disallowing in this context requires the allowing of gay marriage and then the prevention thereafter. I'm sure it happened in California.

No, by disallowing, I meant that no government ever stopped any marriage, they just didn't recognize it, and yes, that was by the will of the people.

Of course as I stated earlier, when marriage becomes such a joke, you will realize why we had limitations on it in the first place. When sister can marry brother, mother can marry son, Grandpa can marry dog, it will be easy to recognize how the 14th was bastardized by liberal activists. After all, if we can't disallow gay marriages because of government benefits, we dan't disallow anybody, and that will be future of marriage in our country.

Before you respond by saying that will never happen, think of how people would have reacted if you could transport yourself back 40 years ago, went to a bar, and told people you were from the future, and that gays would be allowed to marry under the rule of law, they would be able to sue a bakery out of business for refusing to participate; they would be able to adopt children. They probably would have beaten the hell out of you and told you that would never happen in our country.

Liberalism is like cancer. It works slowly, but destroys everything in it's path. By the time you realize it, it's much too late to do anything about it.

But direct family relations can't marry, and no animal can ever consent to marriage, so.... you're talking some fantasy novel, not reality.
If we can't disallow anyone, then maybe marriage will stop being about benefits, and just be about marriage, and then, maybe, it'll all make some sense.

Okay, 40 years ago people would say that gay marriage wouldn't happen. But there's a big difference between gay marriage and marrying your dog, or marrying someone who you already can have many of these benefits from.

No, Liberalism isn't a cancer, without liberalism you'd be working down a mine or a substance farmer.

Many of the Founding Fathers were liberal for their time. CHANGE is bad for some people. What do you think George III thought about the change in 1776? Probably wasn't happy at Liberalism being like cancer, right? However for the MAJORITY of people Liberalism worked.

Now, we can generalize here till the birds come home. I'm more Liberal than Conservative, however I'm more or less my own person. I see stupid shit on both sides. Liberalism isn't necessarily good because it's Liberalism, the same from Conservatism.

What is good is people who have principles and they stand by those principles and those principles come from thought, and there are reasons why things should happen. This doesn't necessarily happen for most people, regardless of their political leanings.

So when the left shout down the right or the right the left, it baffles me, because they're generally both talking crap.

The reason people can't marry a family member or pet is because it hasn't been challenged yet. Give it a few years or decades, you'll see what I'm talking about.

The Supreme Court cannot rule that marriage is explicit to hedero and homo couples. Marriage of any kind isn't covered in the US Constitution. They used an amendment not intended for such perversion to justify their ruling. And since you can't use any amendment to apply to certain people only, it has to apply to everybody. And that's why if the SC hears a case of a mother and son marriage, they have to rule in their favor. Those two people should not be denied benefits that other married people have. That is now written in stone.

No, I don't think I will see what you're talking about, actually. Your claim is based on nothing.

You didn't include children in your spiel, why? Because children are minors, they can't consent to marriage. Sex with a minor is rape. The same goes for anyone or anything which can't consent. That would be animals.

Okay, if marriage applies to all people, does this mean children? No, it does not. Why? Because children have limited rights and limited responsibilities. What rights do animals have under the constitution? None, not one right for animals is protected.

So, an animal doesn't have a right to get married, it can't consent to marriage anyway, and all marriage has to be consenting, so, that defeats that part of the argument.

As for family members, again, they already get a lot of the stuff handed out by the govt anyway.

But if you say no two people should be denied benefits that other married people should have, then this means SINGLE PEOPLE should get such rights. Which then blows all your argument out of the water anyway.

Animals don't have to give consent because they are animals. They are owned by the owner and has to do what the owner says. Animals don't give consent to eating dog food, animals don't give consent to living outside or in a dog house, animals don't give consent to being put to sleep when the owner feels like getting rid of the pet or the pet is otherwise too ill.

What kind of benefits do family members get from the government, I would like to know?

My father is 84 years old now, I could certainly use his SS check after he's gone. The only way that could happen is if we legally married. I mean, this is about equality of government benefits, isn't it?

Other than that, if a single person drops dead on his or her 65th birthday, nobody sees a dime of all that SS money the person (and their employer) contributed. It's gone.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't wonder why, I know why.

Everybody wants to be on the side that's winning. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you just wasted your vote. He or she has no chance of winning.

This is not to mention the fact that most people vote like me. I don't vote for a candidate because of their great ideas, I vote for my candidate to keep the other candidate out.

If Trump loses steam and runs on a third party ticket, I wouldn't vote for him and most of his current supporters wouldn't either. It's not that I'm in love with any of the other Republican candidates, it's that I really don't want to see Hillary in the White House again.

Love it or hate it, that's the way we do things in this country.

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

Actually, in that example I did vote for Romney, my first Republican vote for President since HW in 1988. Obama stopped the Democrat trend of threatening to be a Marxist and is one. And Romney has actual business experience, I was willing to give him a shot.

However, McCain? W? W? Dole? HW? HW? I don't see the difference between them and Democrats.

I voted for McCain and Romney because I could see what DumBama was all about. It's the choice between the bad and the worst, not the worst and the worst. Even if only three or four issues, it's better than none of the issues being addressed and passed simply because of partisanship like we've seen from DumBama.

I think under either of those two guys, our deficit would have shrunk greatly years ago. I think by now, we may even be living under a balanced budget. I think by now, Kate's law would be the law of the land today. I think by now, we would have more Americans working because government goodies would be diminished and in some cases, discontinued altogether.

But because neither won, we are now living under Obama Care. We are now 19 trillion in debt with most of that money wasted. We now will have higher electricity prices due to DumBama shutting down coal fired power plants.

That's why you vote no matter what.

 

[kaz]

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

Actually, in that example I did vote for Romney, my first Republican vote for President since HW in 1988. Obama stopped the Democrat trend of threatening to be a Marxist and is one. And Romney has actual business experience, I was willing to give him a shot.

However, McCain? W? W? Dole? HW? HW? I don't see the difference between them and Democrats.

I voted for McCain and Romney because I could see what DumBama was all about. It's the choice between the bad and the worst, not the worst and the worst. Even if only three or four issues, it's better than none of the issues being addressed and passed simply because of partisanship like we've seen from DumBama.

I think under either of those two guys, our deficit would have shrunk greatly years ago. I think by now, we may even be living under a balanced budget. I think by now, Kate's law would be the law of the land today. I think by now, we would have more Americans working because government goodies would be diminished and in some cases, discontinued altogether.

But because neither won, we are now living under Obama Care. We are now 19 trillion in debt with most of that money wasted. We now will have higher electricity prices due to DumBama shutting down coal fired power plants.

That's why you vote no matter what.

I always vote, just usually third party. Until people give up on voting for the lesser of two evils who mostly are only different in what they say, nothing will really change

 

[francoHFW]

I don't wonder why, I know why.

Everybody wants to be on the side that's winning. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you just wasted your vote. He or she has no chance of winning.

This is not to mention the fact that most people vote like me. I don't vote for a candidate because of their great ideas, I vote for my candidate to keep the other candidate out.

If Trump loses steam and runs on a third party ticket, I wouldn't vote for him and most of his current supporters wouldn't either. It's not that I'm in love with any of the other Republican candidates, it's that I really don't want to see Hillary in the White House again.

Love it or hate it, that's the way we do things in this country.

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

Actually, in that example I did vote for Romney, my first Republican vote for President since HW in 1988. Obama stopped the Democrat trend of threatening to be a Marxist and is one. And Romney has actual business experience, I was willing to give him a shot.

However, McCain? W? W? Dole? HW? HW? I don't see the difference between them and Democrats.

War mongering, incompetence, and big money corruption?

 

[francoHFW]

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

Actually, in that example I did vote for Romney, my first Republican vote for President since HW in 1988. Obama stopped the Democrat trend of threatening to be a Marxist and is one. And Romney has actual business experience, I was willing to give him a shot.

However, McCain? W? W? Dole? HW? HW? I don't see the difference between them and Democrats.

I voted for McCain and Romney because I could see what DumBama was all about. It's the choice between the bad and the worst, not the worst and the worst. Even if only three or four issues, it's better than none of the issues being addressed and passed simply because of partisanship like we've seen from DumBama.

I think under either of those two guys, our deficit would have shrunk greatly years ago. I think by now, we may even be living under a balanced budget. I think by now, Kate's law would be the law of the land today. I think by now, we would have more Americans working because government goodies would be diminished and in some cases, discontinued altogether.

But because neither won, we are now living under Obama Care. We are now 19 trillion in debt with most of that money wasted. We now will have higher electricity prices due to DumBama shutting down coal fired power plants.

That's why you vote no matter what.

Yup, keep voting for the greedy a-holes that caused the problems Obama is still trying to fix...little matter of the 9/11, the stupidest wars EVER, AND a corrupt world depression. Pfffft!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Only the story of the New BS Fox etc GOP the last 30 years. A disgrace, Soviet dupe lol.

oh good, pub pub hater soviet dupe is Francos new best argument from GED school. Tell us why you are liberal or admit with your silence or attempts to change the subject to being too stupid to be here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the problems Obama is still trying to fix..

and cowardly liberal withdrawal from a war that Bush won is trying to fix something?? See why we say stupid?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the stupidest wars EVER,

liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb so not surprising that Franco wanted to make friends with Sadam!!

 

[Jarlaxle]

The reason people can't marry a family member or pet is because it hasn't been challenged yet. Give it a few years or decades, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Nothing rational.

The Supreme Court cannot rule that marriage is explicit to hedero and homo couples. Marriage of any kind isn't covered in the US Constitution. They used an amendment not intended for such perversion to justify their ruling. And since you can't use any amendment to apply to certain people only, it has to apply to everybody. And that's why if the SC hears a case of a mother and son marriage, they have to rule in their favor. Those two people should not be denied benefits that other married people have. That is now written in stone.

No, it's not.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Only the story of the New BS Fox etc GOP the last 30 years. A disgrace, Soviet dupe lol.

oh good, pub pub hater soviet dupe is Francos new best argument from GED school. Tell us why you are liberal or admit with your silence or attempts to change the subject to being too stupid to be here.

He's a spambot.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The reason people can't marry a family member or pet is because it hasn't been challenged yet. Give it a few years or decades, you'll see what I'm talking about.

.

Howard Stern had a guy on who was in love with a dolphin and wanted to marry it in part to establish its humanity and thus gain for it and all dolphins legal protections!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

Actually, in that example I did vote for Romney, my first Republican vote for President since HW in 1988. Obama stopped the Democrat trend of threatening to be a Marxist and is one. And Romney has actual business experience, I was willing to give him a shot.

However, McCain? W? W? Dole? HW? HW? I don't see the difference between them and Democrats.

I voted for McCain and Romney because I could see what DumBama was all about. It's the choice between the bad and the worst, not the worst and the worst. Even if only three or four issues, it's better than none of the issues being addressed and passed simply because of partisanship like we've seen from DumBama.

I think under either of those two guys, our deficit would have shrunk greatly years ago. I think by now, we may even be living under a balanced budget. I think by now, Kate's law would be the law of the land today. I think by now, we would have more Americans working because government goodies would be diminished and in some cases, discontinued altogether.

But because neither won, we are now living under Obama Care. We are now 19 trillion in debt with most of that money wasted. We now will have higher electricity prices due to DumBama shutting down coal fired power plants.

That's why you vote no matter what.

Yup, keep voting for the greedy a-holes that caused the problems Obama is still trying to fix...little matter of the 9/11, the stupidest wars EVER, AND a corrupt world depression. Pfffft!!

Okay, I'll do that. And you keep voting for candidates supported by the US Communist Party, or second in the running an admitted Socialist. Keep voting for cradle-to-grave government so you don't have to worry about working. Keep voting for the path to Greece since that's what makes liberals happy. Keep voting for arming Iran and quite possibly pave the path to WWIII.

DumBama trying to fix problems? He doesn't have the manhood to fix a flat tire on a bicycle.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The reason people can't marry a family member or pet is because it hasn't been challenged yet. Give it a few years or decades, you'll see what I'm talking about.

.

Howard Stern had a guy on who was in love with a dolphin and wanted to marry it in part to establish its humanity and thus gain for it and all dolphins legal protections!

I haven't listened to him in a couple of years; since Artie left. But I believe it. He finds the real waco's in our country.

I don't know but I've heard he siding with Republicans more often than Democrats. That's what turned me off of him in the first place; he started bashing Republican voters.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree that's how it works, but that's also why it doesn't change, third parties can't win until we vote for them. In the end, both parties need to grasp that the other party may talk differently than theirs, but they don't do anything differently and it doesn't really matter. Republicans spend like Democrats, Democrats are as hawkish as Republicans, and both parties in really are socons other than a couple of issues. I finally grasped that in about 1990 and am voting for that, the rise of third parties

You can vote anyway you want, but if you don't vote for one of the major candidates, you just voted for the other one.

Our country has never been this partisan before, and DumBama has a lot to do with that. On the right, the Tea Party people are pulling the party that way. On the left, we have a President that was supported by the US Communist party both elections. You can't get more left than that. In fact, the admitted Socialist, Bernie Sanders is the top contender in some places, and nationally, the second contender for the left.

As our party divide widens, it makes it less and less likely we'll ever see a successful third party candidate.

I disagree, a vote for tweedledum isn't a vote against tweedledee when they are in the end the same. Voting for someone else says you want neither, voting for one isn't voting against their clone, at least not in a meaningful way

How meaningful it is is irrelevant. It's the outcome that matters.

The last election between Romney and DumBama is a good example. Some Republicans didn't care for Romney, so they stayed home. That's how Obama won his reelection. By not voting, they did usher in another four years of Obama.

People who see the choice of republicans or not voting, wow, such intelligence......

I don't even understand what in hell that's supposed to mean. What I said is that Republican voters stayed home because they didn't like Romney. They didn't want to get their coats on, drive through the snow, get to the voting booth and punch a hole for somebody they didn't even like.

The point I was making was that people have loads of choices. There were something like 30 people on the ballot. These people, saw only two choices. Vote for the Republicans, or not vote at all. Do you think this is a good level of intelligence for voters to have?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I see a distinction between "a relationship" and a "marriage". My relationship is what I do day to day. A marriage is merely the formality of being married and being able to get certain things from the government.

The Supreme Court happens to be 1/3rd of the US govt, by the way. Congress and the Presidency have accepted this. Mainly because Congress when through the process of writing the amendment and the states even ratified it, way back when. So, really, it's not just the Supreme Court anyway.

The people revealed they didn't want to accept gay marriage, the country was formed on the basis that individuals had rights and were protected from mob rule. Shocking, hey?

So, the principles of the country came through after 244 years, what is shocking is that it took that long.

No govt ever disallowed gay marriage. Not true. Disallowing in this context requires the allowing of gay marriage and then the prevention thereafter. I'm sure it happened in California.

No, by disallowing, I meant that no government ever stopped any marriage, they just didn't recognize it, and yes, that was by the will of the people.

Of course as I stated earlier, when marriage becomes such a joke, you will realize why we had limitations on it in the first place. When sister can marry brother, mother can marry son, Grandpa can marry dog, it will be easy to recognize how the 14th was bastardized by liberal activists. After all, if we can't disallow gay marriages because of government benefits, we dan't disallow anybody, and that will be future of marriage in our country.

Before you respond by saying that will never happen, think of how people would have reacted if you could transport yourself back 40 years ago, went to a bar, and told people you were from the future, and that gays would be allowed to marry under the rule of law, they would be able to sue a bakery out of business for refusing to participate; they would be able to adopt children. They probably would have beaten the hell out of you and told you that would never happen in our country.

Liberalism is like cancer. It works slowly, but destroys everything in it's path. By the time you realize it, it's much too late to do anything about it.

But direct family relations can't marry, and no animal can ever consent to marriage, so.... you're talking some fantasy novel, not reality.
If we can't disallow anyone, then maybe marriage will stop being about benefits, and just be about marriage, and then, maybe, it'll all make some sense.

Okay, 40 years ago people would say that gay marriage wouldn't happen. But there's a big difference between gay marriage and marrying your dog, or marrying someone who you already can have many of these benefits from.

No, Liberalism isn't a cancer, without liberalism you'd be working down a mine or a substance farmer.

Many of the Founding Fathers were liberal for their time. CHANGE is bad for some people. What do you think George III thought about the change in 1776? Probably wasn't happy at Liberalism being like cancer, right? However for the MAJORITY of people Liberalism worked.

Now, we can generalize here till the birds come home. I'm more Liberal than Conservative, however I'm more or less my own person. I see stupid shit on both sides. Liberalism isn't necessarily good because it's Liberalism, the same from Conservatism.

What is good is people who have principles and they stand by those principles and those principles come from thought, and there are reasons why things should happen. This doesn't necessarily happen for most people, regardless of their political leanings.

So when the left shout down the right or the right the left, it baffles me, because they're generally both talking crap.

The reason people can't marry a family member or pet is because it hasn't been challenged yet. Give it a few years or decades, you'll see what I'm talking about.

The Supreme Court cannot rule that marriage is explicit to hedero and homo couples. Marriage of any kind isn't covered in the US Constitution. They used an amendment not intended for such perversion to justify their ruling. And since you can't use any amendment to apply to certain people only, it has to apply to everybody. And that's why if the SC hears a case of a mother and son marriage, they have to rule in their favor. Those two people should not be denied benefits that other married people have. That is now written in stone.

No, I don't think I will see what you're talking about, actually. Your claim is based on nothing.

You didn't include children in your spiel, why? Because children are minors, they can't consent to marriage. Sex with a minor is rape. The same goes for anyone or anything which can't consent. That would be animals.

Okay, if marriage applies to all people, does this mean children? No, it does not. Why? Because children have limited rights and limited responsibilities. What rights do animals have under the constitution? None, not one right for animals is protected.

So, an animal doesn't have a right to get married, it can't consent to marriage anyway, and all marriage has to be consenting, so, that defeats that part of the argument.

As for family members, again, they already get a lot of the stuff handed out by the govt anyway.

But if you say no two people should be denied benefits that other married people should have, then this means SINGLE PEOPLE should get such rights. Which then blows all your argument out of the water anyway.

Animals don't have to give consent because they are animals. They are owned by the owner and has to do what the owner says. Animals don't give consent to eating dog food, animals don't give consent to living outside or in a dog house, animals don't give consent to being put to sleep when the owner feels like getting rid of the pet or the pet is otherwise too ill.

What kind of benefits do family members get from the government, I would like to know?

My father is 84 years old now, I could certainly use his SS check after he's gone. The only way that could happen is if we legally married. I mean, this is about equality of government benefits, isn't it?

Other than that, if a single person drops dead on his or her 65th birthday, nobody sees a dime of all that SS money the person (and their employer) contributed. It's gone.

Animals have to do what the owner says, however marriage requires that both sides are consenting. So how is an animal going to consent?
A child is "owned" by the family, yet, they can't consent to the child having sex at the age of 10, this is child abuse.

Benefits from family relations are like inheritance laws. Not all laws are there, but again, it's possible that other things happen.

But, the reality is, it would be better if the govt didn't give any benefits to anyone. I'd be happy with that.