Unless you're gay, on the dole, or a commie why would you vote Democrat ?

[MikeK]

I was a registered Republican for most of my voting life and my political orientation inclined toward Conservative. But by 2003 I was convinced that the Republican Party had been taken over by corporatist toadies and that neo-Conservatives bore little to no resemblance to the Conservatism I'd embraced.

So I re-registered as a Democrat -- only because there is no Independent Party in New Jersey and I wish to vote in primaries. Essentially I am an Independent. I intend to vote Independent all the way. I will write in Bernie Sanders for President and I believe the best hope for middle America is to draft Bernie in 2016. He knows what to do, he knows how to do it, and I believe he would.

America can be saved but it will take the following (or equivalents) to set it back on track.

President: Bernie Sanders

Vice President: Dennis Kucinich

Senate Majority Leader: Elizabeth Warren

House Speaker: Alan Grayson

Secretary of State: Ralph Nader

Attorney General: Eliot Spitzer

Once the smoke clears America would be a far better place and the world would be safer.

 

[bripat9643]

I was a registered Republican for most of my voting life and my political orientation inclined toward Conservative. But by 2003 I was convinced that the Republican Party had been taken over by corporatist toadies and that neo-Conservatives bore little to no resemblance to the Conservatism I'd embraced.

So I re-registered as a Democrat -- only because there is no Independent Party in New Jersey and I wish to vote in primaries. Essentially I am an Independent. I intend to vote Independent all the way. I will write in Bernie Sanders for President and I believe the best hope for middle America is to draft Bernie in 2016. He knows what to do, he knows how to do it, and I believe he would.

America can be saved but it will take the following (or equivalents) to set it back on track.

President: Bernie Sanders

Vice President: Dennis Kucinich

Senate Majority Leader: Elizabeth Warren

House Speaker: Alan Grayson

Secretary of State: Ralph Nader

Attorney General: Eliot Spitzer

Once the smoke cleared America would be a far better place and the world would be safer.

You're about as "independent" as Gus Hall, former president of the American Communist Party.

 

[Pheonixops]

these appear to be the three main reasons why people vote Democrat....

anyone...?

Are the majority Jewish people who vote Democrat gay, on the dole, and vote commie? What a silly premise!

Well considering that Dumbocrats hate Jewish people and condemn them and Israel, I'd say only the really stupid Jewish people vote Dumbocrat. And if they are that stupid, then logic would dictate they are most likely on the dole for their basic needs for survival.

So you are basically stating that you as a republican and or conservative think that over 70% of the Jews who vote democrat are either stupid or on the dole. Right?

 

[bripat9643]

You betray a genuine ignorance of contract law. The marriage license provides a next of kin relationship between two adults who have no such relationship. Two adults, not a gaggle of adults. Not animals! When have animals ever been in legal contracts? Not between siblings. They are next of kin. Your arguments are lame.

Nowhere does the marriage contract use the term "next of kin." That's purely your invention. All the argument used to justify "gay marriage" can be used to justify polygamy and incest. Your belief that there's some fundamental distinction is purely the product of partisan ideology and not logic.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorant, hate, and stupidity.

Of course, you have never succeeded in proving a single thing I say to be wrong. Your claim about "next of kin" is pure fantasy.

 

[birddog]

Everyone deserves equal rights, but not special rights.

Liberal/Progressives demand First Amendment rights and are opposed to the Death Penalty, but they don't tolerate criticism of their views and they support abortion! I guess they feel good about supporting queers and murder! Hmmm

 

[Pheonixops]

these appear to be the three main reasons why people vote Democrat....

anyone...?

Are the majority Jewish people who vote Democrat gay, on the dole, and vote commie? What a silly premise!

they obviously fall into the default category.....mentally/emotionally shortchanged...

Jews who support Israel are insane to support the Demonrats...

Why do you think that over 7 out of 10 Jewish Americans vote Democrat?

 

[Iceweasel]

Equal treatment under the law is mandated by the 14th Amendment with regard to the relationship between a citizen and the state, something liberals understand and accept and most conservatives oppose.

When the state seeks to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or a class of persons its civil liberties, it may do so predicated solely on a rational basis, justified by objective facts and evidence, and pursuant to a proper legislative end (see, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996)). Failing to meet these criteria will invalidate the state’s effort to deny citizens their civil liberties, as it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

All citizens must be treated equally by government, government may not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons absent a compelling, rational, and objectively justified motive.

Citizens yes. Relationships, no. Not all relationships are equal. It's stupid to pretend that relationships are people and need government approval.

 

[Pheonixops]

Everyone deserves equal rights, but not special rights.

Liberal/Progressives demand First Amendment rights and are opposed to the Death Penalty, but they don't tolerate criticism of their views and they support abortion! I guess they feel good about supporting queers and murder! Hmmm

I definitely support the First Amendment, I also support the death penalty after all appeals are exhausted, I am an advocate of the free exchange of ideas and opinions, I don't "support abortion", I actually would advocate adoption over abortion, but I also respect a woman's right to choose. I'm a Liberal and you are , well................

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Are the majority Jewish people who vote Democrat gay, on the dole, and vote commie? What a silly premise!

they obviously fall into the default category.....mentally/emotionally shortchanged...

Jews who support Israel are insane to support the Demonrats...

Why do you think that over 7 out of 10 Jewish Americans vote Democrat?

is that a real question or are you just agreeing....?

if real....why...?

 

[Spoonman]

these appear to be the three main reasons why people vote Democrat....

anyone...?

you like the taste of the koolaid

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

these appear to be the three main reasons why people vote Democrat....

anyone...?

you like the taste of the koolaid

Two kinds of Koolaid - red OR blue.

If you have to listen to your AM radio in order to know WHAT to think, you might drink Koolaid as well.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't give a damn if even one of them wants Marriage Equality, I want them to have it because our societal value is Equal Before the Law. It's matters, it's not about the faggots whining.

do you really believe that everything is 'equal'......?

Equal treatment under the law is mandated by the 14th Amendment with regard to the relationship between a citizen and the state, something liberals understand and accept and most conservatives oppose.

When the state seeks to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or a class of persons its civil liberties, it may do so predicated solely on a rational basis, justified by objective facts and evidence, and pursuant to a proper legislative end (see, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996)). Failing to meet these criteria will invalidate the state’s effort to deny citizens their civil liberties, as it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

All citizens must be treated equally by government, government may not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons absent a compelling, rational, and objectively justified motive.

since marriage typically involves children how do you explain the non-equal treatment of children...? aren't gays denying them their equal rights to having both a mother and a father....not to mention equal rights to their biological heritage....including familial relationships....?

HousePainter doesn't seem to want to answer the question...

 

[Nosmo King]

your non-thinking would lead to "marry as many as you say you love, sister marry brother and on down the line=marriage equality then marry your dog!!! WISE UP!!!

You betray a genuine ignorance of contract law. The marriage license provides a next of kin relationship between two adults who have no such relationship. Two adults, not a gaggle of adults. Not animals! When have animals ever been in legal contracts? Not between siblings. They are next of kin. Your arguments are lame.

Nowhere does the marriage contract use the term "next of kin." That's purely your invention. All the argument used to justify "gay marriage" can be used to justify polygamy and incest. Your belief that there's some fundamental distinction is purely the product of partisan ideology and not logic.

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Otherwise, why is it there? And the marriage contract is one established between two parties. Watch now as your argument melts like butter on a hot griddle.

 

[bripat9643]

You betray a genuine ignorance of contract law. The marriage license provides a next of kin relationship between two adults who have no such relationship. Two adults, not a gaggle of adults. Not animals! When have animals ever been in legal contracts? Not between siblings. They are next of kin. Your arguments are lame.

Nowhere does the marriage contract use the term "next of kin." That's purely your invention. All the argument used to justify "gay marriage" can be used to justify polygamy and incest. Your belief that there's some fundamental distinction is purely the product of partisan ideology and not logic.

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Otherwise, why is it there? And the marriage contract is one established between two parties. Watch now as your argument melts like butter on a hot griddle.

The marriage contract establishes a marriage relationship. All this "next of kin" blather is purely to justify your attempt to exclude other similar relationships like polygamy and incestuous marriages.

You haven't posted a thing that contradicts my argument. All you've done is insist that your take on reality is correct.

 

[Nosmo King]

Equal treatment under the law is mandated by the 14th Amendment with regard to the relationship between a citizen and the state, something liberals understand and accept and most conservatives oppose.

When the state seeks to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or a class of persons its civil liberties, it may do so predicated solely on a rational basis, justified by objective facts and evidence, and pursuant to a proper legislative end (see, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996)). Failing to meet these criteria will invalidate the state’s effort to deny citizens their civil liberties, as it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

All citizens must be treated equally by government, government may not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons absent a compelling, rational, and objectively justified motive.

Citizens yes. Relationships, no. Not all relationships are equal. It's stupid to pretend that relationships are people and need government approval.

What about corporations? Uh at is a business relationship established under law.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You betray a genuine ignorance of contract law. The marriage license provides a next of kin relationship between two adults who have no such relationship. Two adults, not a gaggle of adults. Not animals! When have animals ever been in legal contracts? Not between siblings. They are next of kin. Your arguments are lame.

Nowhere does the marriage contract use the term "next of kin." That's purely your invention. All the argument used to justify "gay marriage" can be used to justify polygamy and incest. Your belief that there's some fundamental distinction is purely the product of partisan ideology and not logic.

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Otherwise, why is it there? And the marriage contract is one established between two parties. Watch now as your argument melts like butter on a hot griddle.

that's why traditional marriage is different....it isn't just a 'contract' between two whatevers.....it is a relationship between one man and one woman who can typically have children together....thus forming the basic block of society....much more than just a 'contract'....

or should our society go backwards.....like to the days when women were used in 'contract' agreements like chattel....?

 

[Nosmo King]

Nowhere does the marriage contract use the term "next of kin." That's purely your invention. All the argument used to justify "gay marriage" can be used to justify polygamy and incest. Your belief that there's some fundamental distinction is purely the product of partisan ideology and not logic.

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Otherwise, why is it there? And the marriage contract is one established between two parties. Watch now as your argument melts like butter on a hot griddle.

The marriage contract establishes a marriage relationship. All this "next of kin" blather is purely to justify your attempt to exclude other similar relationships like polygamy and incestuous marriages.

You haven't posted a thing that contradicts my argument. All you've done is insist that your take on reality is correct.

The benefits and advantages of a marriage contract are available only due to the next of kin relationship.

If you persist in ignoring that simple, fundamental fact there is very little to talk about. Hiding behind semantic skirts is a cowardly and unsustainable position.

 

[Nosmo King]

Nowhere does the marriage contract use the term "next of kin." That's purely your invention. All the argument used to justify "gay marriage" can be used to justify polygamy and incest. Your belief that there's some fundamental distinction is purely the product of partisan ideology and not logic.

The marriage contract establishes a next of kin relationship. Otherwise, why is it there? And the marriage contract is one established between two parties. Watch now as your argument melts like butter on a hot griddle.

that's why traditional marriage is different....it isn't just a 'contract' between two whatevers.....it is a relationship between one man and one woman who can typically have children together....thus forming the basic block of society....much more than just a 'contract'....

or should our society go backwards.....like to the days when women were used in 'contract' agreements like chattel....?

In the eyes of the state a marriage contract is simply that: a contract. Should the state monitor every marriage to assure that each marriage maintains a healthy relationship? If marriage was established by the state for procreation, should the elderly be eligible for a marriage license?

 

[jasonnfree]

I haven't ever voted democrat in my life. I always voted GOP(due to my dad's influence). The current GOP who is beholden to protecting corporate America and the uber wealthy will not be getting my vote this time around. I have yet to see a candidate who isn't falling all over themselves to make sure those mentioned above aren't their first priority. Plutocrats in my book. The older I get the more moderate I get.

Libturds who claim they used to be Republicans are a dime a dozen in this forum, and they're all liars.

Any proof to back that up? I mean the liberals lying about previously being republicans? You seem to flit from one thread to another posting this garbage but never anything for proof. The last finger boy lie before this one was about Obama paying democrats to post on forums.

 

[rightwinger]

do you really believe that everything is 'equal'......?

Equal treatment under the law is mandated by the 14th Amendment with regard to the relationship between a citizen and the state, something liberals understand and accept and most conservatives oppose.

When the state seeks to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or a class of persons its civil liberties, it may do so predicated solely on a rational basis, justified by objective facts and evidence, and pursuant to a proper legislative end (see, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996)). Failing to meet these criteria will invalidate the state’s effort to deny citizens their civil liberties, as it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

All citizens must be treated equally by government, government may not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons absent a compelling, rational, and objectively justified motive.

since marriage typically involves children how do you explain the non-equal treatment of children...? aren't gays denying them their equal rights to having both a mother and a father....not to mention equal rights to their biological heritage....including familial relationships....?

HousePainter doesn't seem to want to answer the question...

Isn't divorce denying children a mother and a father? Why aren't conservatives fighting that?