Mitt Romney lol

[KakeiTheWolf 652]

I don't believe that it is moronic for someone to care about the state of their rights - the person in that video, for example, brought up a very good point when he started talking about what would happen to his partner if he were to die. How is worrying about your loved one's future after your own passing moronic?

 

I agree that there are a large number of very significant issues at hand presently, and that gay marriage should not be among them - rather than making it be a subject of attention and debate, people should simply be given equal rights and that should be the end of it. If you want to make the argument that marriage is a fundamentally religious institution and should subsequently not be forcefully tampered with, that's fine - call it a civil union if it will make it less of an issue.

 

But yeah, I agree - people should be able to focus on other issues. :V

 

My point I was making was that, as it stands, the priorities SHOULD be on the economic crisis. The economic crisis is very soon going to be a reality, and it is critical that we take the narrow window of opportunity we have to solve the financial problems in our economy. Gays and the concept of marriage... neither of those are disappearing any time soon. If a president could significantly lessen the economic disaster to come, but it meant gays waiting another four years for a shot at marriage, that president would be significantly better than one who got gay marriage approved in every state yet led to the irrevocable destruction of the global economy.

 

Honestly, I don't care for the fight about gay marriage. I'm so sick of hearing it, I'd give them what they want just so they would shut up (Unlikely, as they'd find something NEW to complain about). Honestly, civil unions should suffice for people. If people are marrying for benefits, they should be run over by a train. You want benefits, go on welfare. As for providing for people? A decent job, responsible saving, and a careful budget for retirement ameliorate that.

 

I really don't see why gays even want marriage. Marriage doesn't do all that much. It's more of just a title than anything (In which that is much like peasants asking for dukedom). You don't need to be married to live with someone, sleep with them, or do whatever the hell you please with them. Nor do you require marriage to love someone (All you really need for that is a few chemicals to be floating around in your brain).

 

My real issue with this is how much effort and money is being wasted on this (Yes, wasted, as none of it really gets anything done). The LGBT community could have spent the millions and millions of dollars they've thrown in a fire on helping people. They could be spending time and money making critical contributions to society. Lobbying, litigation, and harassment don't earn respect, they earn fear and hatred. If they want respect, they should do it the exact same way as other minorities go about it: With patience and altruism. The old saying does hold true: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

 

Oh, and by the way, I don't see how it is important that the person was a veteran. That actually would make me hate him far more than the fact he is gay.

[Master Chief 183]

Please, for the love of God, do NOT post anything about politics. I already go to an entire school full of heathen idiots that like to talk trash about Romney ONLY because he's white. In my opinion, he wouldn't be a good leader. But he'd be better than Obama. Anyways, (I'm done being hypocritical ) the My Little Pony forums is NOT the place to be talking politics. I see politics as something meant to tear us all apart, which is why I never discuss any form of election with my close-knit friends. If you want to talk about politics, do it somewhere else. I don't want Bronies arguing over America's leader. Reading some of these comments, I already see people arguing and posting novels. Edited September 6, 2012 by Rainbow Dash G4

[AegisReflector 886]

Please, for the love of God, do NOT post anything about politics. I already go to an entire school full of heathen idiots that like to talk trash about Romney ONLY because he's white. In my opinion, he wouldn't be a good leader. But he'd be better than Obama. Anyways, (I'm done being hypocritical ) the My Little Pony forums is NOT the place to be talking politics. I see politics as something meant to tear us all apart, which is why I never discuss any form of election with my close-knit friends. If you want to talk about politics, do it somewhere else. I don't want Bronies arguing over America's leader. Reading some of these comments, I already see people arguing and posting novels.

 

How is this really arguing? Nobody is calling people names and nobody is bashing other people for their opinions. I was just curious to see what other people's opinions were, and then I caught myself up on a little debate. That's all, man. No need to worry about it.

[KakeiTheWolf 652]

I would like to mention that the veteran said that he believed Romney would be denying "constitutional rights" by supporting repealing.

 

There is no basis for this, as absolutely nothing in the constitution mentions universal marriage is a right. In fact, the Constitution never mentions the subject at all. There's nothing in the Constitution regarding marriage. Even concerning the 27 amendments. However, there is constitutional material that DOES show that states can bar gay marriage.

 

The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (This also applies to Roe v. Wade, meaning abortion can be banned on a state by state basis (Except for in the case of life-threatening pregnancies)). Though marriage is recognized on a federal basis, it is not regulated on a federal basis.

 

What this means is that, because the power to regulate of marriage is not expressly given to the government (And cannot be without amendment), and is not denied to the states (And cannot be without amendment), the power to regulate marriage is directly given to the states. So states can bar gay marriage or allow it on a statewide basis if they please. So, no, the constitution does not entitle gays to marriage, and would need an amendment to change that. And to do that, it would have to pass in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (With a two-thirds majority in each), Then, 38 states must pass it.

 

Odds are not in the favor of the LGBT.

[AegisReflector 886]

Actually, there's a very good read out there that technically, the Constitution isn't in full effect as people think it is.

 

Basically, I'll sum it up, since it's kind of confusing and I just read about it a couple of weeks ago. There's this thing called the United States Code that technically splits this nation up into 2 groups: Continental United States and Federal United States. Ever since the country went bankrupt in 1938, investors and stockbrokers basically bought out the country and now precedents in the countroom prior to 1938 cannot be held liable for use. It's actually pretty scary if you think about it. A Constitution that literally isn't in use.

 

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm

[BaBaBrony 111]

Is this really a good reason to be lolling at Mitt Romney? The guy is practically being held hostage by an increasingly unhinged Republican Party.

[RockinRarity 1,605]

If one group is entitled to certain rights and benefits as a result of getting married, or in entering into any sort of social contract with each other, there is no good reason that those rights and benefits should not be extended equally to everyone. If the government were to do away with marriage benefits entirely (which, I daresay, is not likely to happen), for everyone, I think it would be much less of an issue since there would then be no inequality to worry about.

 

... as long as you're looking at things from a practical perspective, anyhow.

 

The reason why married couples are even granted governmental benefits in the first place is so that it would be easier, financially, for them to have children.

 

However, our culture frowns upon children nowadays. People see having a certain number of children as being "irresponsible" or whatnot. People desire a life filled with sex, but see children as a result of sex as a life-ruiner. Which is why the benefits granted to married couples now seems silly and exclusive. People just don't want kids anymore. That's why the contraceptive mandate from the HHS was instilled, and that's why women have abortions. Half of abortions are a result of failed birth control. That's why there are 1.3 million abortions that happen per year in the US alone. People want lots and lots of sex and pleasure and they don't want the consequence.

 

Granted, gay couples can adopt, and straight couples can be infertile. The thing is that because it is impossible for gay couples to naturally and biologically produce children of their own and it always WILL be impossible (a miracle could happen for an infertile woman, but a man can never get pregnant, and a woman can never produce sperm), and the actual act of having procreative sex can still happen for an infertile heterosexual couple, it makes most sense to grant benefits to male/female couples who engage in penal/vaginal sex so that there is a possibility of offspring that they may be able to afford to raise because of governmental benefits.

 

After writing this post out, I am now realizing just how complicated this issue can get, and it even raises the question, "Since we as a nation don't want kids anymore, should we even grant marital benefits to anyone? Is the notion of having children simply outdated?"

 

It is true that I don't believe in gay marriage because I believe that God designed our sexuality to be oriented towards uniting with our spouse and procreating. As a result, I do my best to vote with my beliefs, and not just bow to the will of others just because it's what THEY want... I know that people who do that are trying to be "understanding" of other people's beliefs, but to back off on your own beliefs for the sake of others' beliefs is a sign that maybe you don't really believe in the first place. It makes you sound apathetic. And I'll admit, if I weren't raised by intelligently in religion, I'd think it's absolutely ludicrous that we aren't letting gay people get married. But I think there's more to life than what meets the eye, and that there's more significance to our sexuality than a fun expression of love.

[Homura Akemi 974]

I've been laughing at this all the time and through it. George Washington, he said he was with no political party because all they'd do is argue more than get on about the problem, and he said this 200 YEARS AGO, and he was right.

 

Besides, like Chief Pontiac said in Pontiac's War, 'We're just the cloth in between two blades of scissors.'

 

But still, even though Obama has done a bunch of bad stuff, including the guns ban, Obamacare, and NDAA, he'd still make a better president than the tyrant and money power and rich Mitt Romney. Romney can't even decide what side of a debate he's going to be on.

 

I'm just waiting for the day when someone starts rebelling against the government, and someone has attempted.

If you didn't know, a couple of days ago, a small militia in Georgia was found out because they had killed two people giving them away. The media makes them looks like idiots, but I'm surprised that no one went 'Hm... they must have been mad about something to start a militia.' I respect them, yes they did act like idiots and were disorganized, but they had the guts to try and do this. You wouldn't see a lot of people today that would say 'I'm going to stand up against the United States Government.'

 

Plus, I think Obama has been noticing this too and getting paranoid about it. Passing the NDAA, allowing the president to announce any area in the world to be a war zone for USA, seems fishy. Guns ban against certain types of Automatics, even fishier.

 

If this cycle keeps on going, The Presidents say they're going to do something else but don't focus on the main problem, then people are going to start trying to take charge themselves, by FORCE.

 

I agree with George Washington. I just don't like political parties that much. I kind of stand on my own without a specific set of beliefs and will root for whoever I like, regardless of their party.

[Chapien 26]

I find it hilarious when the state's rights argument is used on social policies such as Gay Marriage, because the State's rights issue has been used on more things than just gay marriage. For example, in the 60's, proponents of allowing certain states to segregate schools and voting based on race argued that it was a state right. And to go back even further, state's rights were used as an argument to permit Slavery in certain states of the Union, as well as the ultimate secession that enabled the bloodiest American conflict to occur, that being the Civil War.

 

America is, and always has been, built on a house of cards - it is only a matter of time before those cards collapse entirely. We can elect Obama, and continue on our teetering house, or elect Romney, and just have the entire house collapse.

 

Or we can do what I do, and vote third party and hopefully build our house out of something far more sensible. Like stone.

[NostalgicPony 310]

I find it hilarious when the state's rights argument is used on social policies such as Gay Marriage, because the State's rights issue has been used on more things than just gay marriage. For example, in the 60's, proponents of allowing certain states to segregate schools and voting based on race argued that it was a state right. And to go back even further, state's rights were used as an argument to permit Slavery in certain states of the Union, as well as the ultimate secession that enabled the bloodiest American conflict to occur, that being the Civil War.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it started with the idea to conserve slavery or segregation, but more to the original ideas of the Articles of Confederation where each state were allowed to make their own laws without the interference by the federal government, except with barring people from traveling to each state, to go to war and act diplomatically with other nations and having it's own standing army.

 

Then it came to the days when John Adams and the Federalist Party were implementing federal laws that violated many rights in the Constitution; that being freedom of speech, press, etc. With acts such as the Alien and Seditions Acts. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and the Democratic-Republican Party were against the idea of the federal governing enacting laws that would violate the rights of citizens in other states even though the Constitution recognizes such rights. This then lead to the underground drafting of the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions which the two men sent to the Kentucky and Virgina legislatures,these were the first series of bills and other initiatives for nullification, to declare acts that the federal government passes as unconstitutional. This was the birth of State Right advocacy.

 

Of course, more events lead up to the Civil War, but this was the fundamental idea that caused the South to break up.

[Chapien 26]

I wouldn't necessarily say that it started with the idea to conserve slavery or segregation, but more to the original ideas of the Articles of Confederation where each state were allowed to make their own laws without the interference by the federal government, except with barring people from traveling to each state, to go to war and act diplomatically with other nations and having it's own standing army.

 

Then it came to the days when John Adams and the Federalist Party were implementing federal laws that violated many rights in the Constitution; that being freedom of speech, press, etc. With acts such as the Alien and Seditions Acts. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and the Democratic-Republican Party were against the idea of the federal governing enacting laws that would violate the rights of citizens in other states even though the Constitution recognizes such rights. This then lead to the underground drafting of the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions which the two men sent to the Kentucky and Virgina legislatures,these were the first series of bills and other initiatives for nullification, to declare acts that the federal government passes as unconstitutional. This was the birth of State Right advocacy.

 

Of course, more events lead up to the Civil War, but this was the fundamental idea that caused the South to break up.

 

Oh, believe me, I know all about it. State's rights are all fine and good- the Federal Government has plenty wrong with it, believe me when I say this, but, it is very possible to abuse it. And I feel that when people use the State's Rights argument to justify stepping on other people (in issues such as gay liberation, segregation, etc.) that that is the definition of abuse of State's Rights.

 

Let us not forget the original motto of the USA, in place before the adoption of "In God We Trust" in 1956 - E Pluribus Unim - Out of Many, One.

[AegisReflector 886]

I'd much rather have a more powerful state influence than government. Think about it. Indifferences would be settled in a heartbeat and people wouldn't have to blame an incompetent government for actions that fools think stem from Capitol Hill. Every state would be different, and if people don't like it, they could move to another state that most surely shares their values.

[Chapien 26]

I'd much rather have a more powerful state influence than government. Think about it. Indifferences would be settled in a heartbeat and people wouldn't have to blame an incompetent government for actions that fools think stem from Capitol Hill. Every state would be different, and if people don't like it, they could move to another state that most surely shares their values.

 

See, I used to agree with this argument, I really used to, but then I realized it just is insubstantial. First, most Americans cannot afford to simply pick up everything, all of their belongings, leave their home and friends, and find a new home in another state just because the current state does not support a vital part of their rights (ie gay rights). The idea is sound in theory, but in practice it just isn't financially viable at all.

 

Now, I'm not in favor of an extremely strong central government, but, in the current conditions of America, at least some Central government is necessary in various issues.

 

The problem is, the Government keeps giving the issues that should be Federal issues to the states, and issues that should be state issues they keep taking into their own hands.

[AegisReflector 886]

If the state's focused on their own economy rather than just wasting money to meet GOVERNMENT regulations like with education and transportation (oh yes, they do have their bouts with those, even though it's supposed to be guaranteed STATES rights), then the economic recession wouldn't be as solid as it is now. But alas, I am dwelling on the inevitable, as it will take years for even a slight bounce for our economy to recover.

[One 498]

The sad thing is that I don't have anything intellegent to say about this video, all I have to say was it was entertaining, and fun to watch.

[AegisReflector 886]

The sad thing is that I don't have anything intellegent to say about this video, all I have to say was it was entertaining, and fun to watch.

 

haha yeah, that's generally the reaction I got when I posted it on my FB page. It's funny, voters are usually more driven on the fighting than they are with the actual issues. Ah, to be a human.

[Chapien 26]

If the state's focused on their own economy rather than just wasting money to meet GOVERNMENT regulations like with education and transportation (oh yes, they do have their bouts with those, even though it's supposed to be guaranteed STATES rights), then the economic recession wouldn't be as solid as it is now. But alas, I am dwelling on the inevitable, as it will take years for even a slight bounce for our economy to recover.

 

That still doesn't avoid the key issue. State's Rights are fine. They are great. It's a great thing, and we aren't the only country that has them (each Swiss Canton has even greater autonomy than US States, and each German state has its own Chancellor). They are fine for economics, and fine for some social policies. But when a state uses the state right's argument to impose oppression on others - again, such as segregation as they attempted to do in the 60's - then unfortunately we need to limit that right.

 

What is more important, the people, the state, or the federal government? The answer is the people. Who helps the people more? The federal government or the state they live in? On this matter, it depends entirely on the issue - some state economic decisions are vastly more beneficial than US laws and regulations, but in some cases (such as gay marriage or segregation), the federal government may have a better position than the states.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Chapien

[AegisReflector 886]

What is more important, the people, the state, or the federal government? The answer is the people. Who helps the people more? The federal government or the state they live in? On this matter, it depends entirely on the issue - some state economic decisions are vastly more beneficial than US laws and regulations, but in some cases (such as gay marriage or segregation), the federal government may have a better position than the states.

 

Both State regulation and Government regulation closely work with each other. Obviously, a Republican controlled Congress might favor states like Texas, North Carolina, etc. more while a Democratic Congress might favor New York more. This is why we need to balance out the power, and unfortunately, the government as of late has not been enforcing that idea. Rather, they are trying to regulate abortions/health care without first consenting with the financial needs of the people, and that's just not right. Hey, I am a Socialist at heart, but even I disapprove of Obamacare.

[Chapien 26]

Both State regulation and Government regulation closely work with each other. Obviously, a Republican controlled Congress might favor states like Texas, North Carolina, etc. more while a Democratic Congress might favor New York more. This is why we need to balance out the power, and unfortunately, the government as of late has not been enforcing that idea. Rather, they are trying to regulate abortions/health care without first consenting with the financial needs of the people, and that's just not right. Hey, I am a Socialist at heart, but even I disapprove of Obamacare.

 

If I could vote, I'd vote for Stewart Alexander, the Socialist party candidate, so I think we agree largely on this

 

Healthcare is a vital issue though - one that is very personal to me (due to reasons I'd prefer not to get into). "Obamacare" is not good simply because it isn't enough (in my humble opinion). However, there is one important thing to remember about "Obamacare" - it is better than what we have now and, ultimately, a step forward.