Mitt Romney lol

[Samurshy 708]

Something that most people don't realize is that the president of the united states has little say in what actually goes on legislatively. Sure he can go ahead and veto things he doesn't like but that only prolongs the inevitable. Really the president of the united states is just a poster boy, he is just a face given to the legislature, and he is just someone to blame when things go wrong. It matters not if a president actually cares about gay marriage, because it is the house of reps and senate that have the final say.

[Scarfy HOOVES 310]

John F. Kennedy was a Catholic and he was voted into office. People knew what they were doing.

 

Obama's religion is clearly questionable as he has yet to announce what he truly is. Obviously, people knew this but still voted for him anyways despite rumors of him being a "secret Muslim".

 

Never underestimate the power of an election. Things can get topsy-turvey in an instant. Just look at the rigged voting of Gore v. Bush.

 

catholic is still considered as christian religion. i think one of the huge issues in general is how people vote based on this not all do....but most do. It's the same reason a gay president would never win. people vote to much based on ethnics and not enough on economics

[AegisReflector 886]

Something that most people don't realize is that the president of the united states has little say in what actually goes on legislatively. Sure he can go ahead and veto things he doesn't like but that only prolongs the inevitable. Really the president of the united states is just a poster boy, he is just a face given to the legislature, and he is just someone to blame when things go wrong. It matters not if a president actually cares about gay marriage, because it is the house of reps and senate that have the final say.

 

While that is true, the president's role is also to establish a meaningful connection between all branches of Congress. The House of Reps, Congress, and the Supreme Court have to be unified and balanced in order for the decision-making to be more rational. Without the president, it would be an uncontrollable bitter struggle of power by both major parties and then NOTHING would ever get settled.

[DrOphthalmos 497]

i really don't see him winning mainly cuz he is a morom. This is not me judging morons it's the simple fact that the majority of Christians will not vote for someone who believes in things that appear in history about as often as lepurchans it's said but i feel this will make it hard for him to win. Many rational people will see his faith views so irrational that they believe it will effect his ability to think rationally while in office as well. It's sad but the majority of people vote strictly on faith. one of the reasons kerry lost to bush

 

When you talk of Christians, I am guessing you are not thinking Catholics. Because of Obama care requiring Catholic institutions to provide healthcare that covers abortions and contraception, Catholic Churches are encouraging people to go with Mitt the Twit. I am not a fan of Obama but I do not want to vote for a guy that seems to be constantly sticking his foot in his mouth. For me this election is about picking the lesser of two evils - and right now I am not sure which side that is.

[AegisReflector 886]

catholic is still considered as christian religion. i think one of the huge issues in general is how people vote based on this not all do....but most do. It's the same reason a gay president would never win. people vote to much based on ethnics and not enough on economics

 

But Catholicism is a major difference. Some people were scared of JFK because they thought the country would be turned over to the Pope for guidance and they didn't want that. Mormonism is techincally a branch off of the Christian faith, but it's still very different from the main branch, and that's why people are upset over it.

[Scarfy HOOVES 310]

Something that most people don't realize is that the president of the united states has little say in what actually goes on legislatively. Sure he can go ahead and veto things he doesn't like but that only prolongs the inevitable. Really the president of the united states is just a poster boy, he is just a face given to the legislature, and he is just someone to blame when things go wrong. It matters not if a president actually cares about gay marriage, because it is the house of reps and senate that have the final say.

 

Most Americans that vote don't think this way though even though it's true. the president is just a puppet while the legislature polls strings and hides behind him when thinks go wrong the first person to get pointed at when things are bad is the president really it's not all his fault.

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

I'm not exactly sure how you consider Romney as getting "owned" in this video.

 

The veteran asked a question and wanted a straight answer. Romney respectfully gave him a straight answer.

 

The only thing the veteran made in response was that Romney doesn't support his "constitutional rights."

 

As far as I'm aware, the United States Constitution does not and has never stated or asserted that it is a person's right to redefine the institution of marriage in order to fit their personal preferences.

 

I'm quite sure the founding fathers would have laughed in the face of anyone who'd think the Constitution grants them such "rights."

[Zoop 8,384]

This is the key issue in my opinion. First can marriage even be considered a right? Second, for those who are married is it a right to get benefits for it? I wouldn't consider it a right and I don't think anyone should be given any sort of benefits (especially by the government) for something so ambiguous.

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.

 

 

Sure he can go ahead and veto things he doesn't like

I think that's the key issue that a lot of people have. Overcoming a presidential veto isn't a particularly simple matter.

[AegisReflector 886]

As far as I'm aware, the United States Constitution does not and has never stated or asserted that it is a person's right to redefine the institution of marriage in order to fit their personal preferences.

 

I'm quite sure the founding fathers would have laughed in the face of anyone who'd think the Constitution grants them such "rights."

 

But see, here's the thing. The Consitution was written in 1787, not just last year. Obviously things are going to be pretty obsolete and not in tandum, so I'm pretty sure nearly half of the Consitution's original goals are shattered and will not be seeing the light of day anymore. This is why we have consitutional clause, the "unwritten constitution" practice, and the amendments. As society gets more advanced and understanding of worldly views, surely there can be some sort of logical compromise in the future that can bring citizens more unified. But as long as the Donkeys and Elephants keep fighting against each other, it will be a hell of a long time before anything can get done efficiently.

[Scarfy HOOVES 310]

I'm not exactly sure how you consider Romney as getting "owned" in this video.

 

The veteran asked a question and wanted a straight answer. Romney respectfully gave him a straight answer.

 

The only thing the veteran made in response was that Romney doesn't support his "constitutional rights."

 

As far as I'm aware, the United States Constitution does not and has never stated or asserted that it is a person's right to redefine the institution of marriage in order to fit their personal preferences.

 

I'm quite sure the founding fathers would have laughed in the face of anyone who'd think the Constitution grants them such "rights."

 

lol i agree with you there it does seem absurd when you put it in that context. lol and i love the bit about the founding fathers laughing in the guess face.

[Samurshy 708]

I am not going to bother quoting I will just reply to you guys and if you see it you see it. The three branches of the government have checks and balances in place that make it so one cannot over power or over shadow the other. The executive branch which is where the president is located has it's own checks and balances against the legislative so that they legislature does not completely take over, such as the veto. But the legislative branch has it's own way around veto's, including unofficial ways like bribing. The legislature will continue to push the law they really want even if it gets vetoed they will push for it and push for it until it comes into fruition. When it comes to laws, the president has little to do with what gets proposed and what gets passed.

[irobern2857 95]

i don't agree with what mitt says although i do support him to be the pres. and to everyone saying that he gave no reason for his answer, he was not asked for his reasons, but i will put money down that it is his religion. Mormons are generally against gay marriage just the same as most Christians. i think that gay rights should be created, but i am generally republican in my views. i think that if politics were less black and white the country would be better off.

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

 

If you consider the Constitution and the Amendments obselete and irrelevant due to the date they were created, then you have absoluely no legal basis to even claim you have any rights, let alone the right to redefine marriage. Edited September 6, 2012 by Lady Rarity Pony

[AegisReflector 886]

If you consider the Constitution and the Amendments obselete and irrelevant due to the date they were created, then you have absoluely no legal basis to even claim you have any rights, let alone the right to redefine marriage.

 

Did I say ALL of the Consitution? No I didn't. I said most of it, which is pretty much accurate. We don't have slaves and women now have the right to vote. All sorts of people can own property. Yes, these were done with amendments, but the point I was making is that with the Prohibition Amendment, it was ousted out by another amendment, and now most Americans drink beer. So what's the problem of allowing marriage? We seem to be getting on the right track....BY NOT FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION......if we have many, MANY rights now then we did say 250+ years ago (unless you were white and Christian lol)

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

Did I say ALL of the Consitution? No I didn't. I said most of it

 

You're missing the point. If you can declare any part of the Constitution as obselete simply because time passed and you don't agree, then of what value is the Constitution and the Amendments?

 

It's worth absolutely nothing if you can edit it every time you feel like it.

[Zoop 8,384]

It's worth absolutely nothing if you can edit it every time you feel like it.

This. Constitutional amendments are rare and infrequent for a very good reason; it's something that should only be modified and tampered with when there is a damn good reason to do so, I would say - even if not everyone is apt to agree on what a 'good reason' is.

[Samurshy 708]

You're missing the point. If you can declare any part of the Constitution as obselete simply because time passed and you don't agree, then of what value is the Constitution and the Amendments?

 

It's worth absolutely nothing if you can edit it every time you feel like it.

 

Did I say ALL of the Consitution? No I didn't. I said most of it, which is pretty much accurate. We don't have slaves and women now have the right to vote. All sorts of people can own property. Yes, these were done with amendments, but the point I was making is that with the Prohibition Amendment, it was ousted out by another amendment, and now most Americans drink beer. So what's the problem of allowing marriage? We seem to be getting on the right track....BY NOT FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION......if we have many, MANY rights now then we did say 250+ years ago (unless you were white and Christian lol)

 

The constitution was written with the fact that society advances in mind, otherwise there would not have been the ability to amend. Everything written in the constitution has been pretty much the basis for how the world (notice how I say, WORLD, and not usa,) works today. One cannot simply say most of it is obsolete because it is old, our founding fathers were wise men, and they created one of the most important documents in history. Never forget that.

[AegisReflector 886]

You're missing the point. If you can declare any part of the Constitution as obselete simply because time passed and you don't agree, then of what value is the Constitution and the Amendments?

 

It's worth absolutely nothing if you can edit it every time you feel like it.

 

What about other lesser known social issues? There were no amendments or changes made in the Consitution that made pornography legal when it was "outlawed" in the early 1900's, that made today's shows like Family Guy or even Adventure Time more edgier than other works say in the 1950's, that made the "flappers" who they were in the Roaring Twenties (where in most cities it was illegal for a woman to not be wearing "exceptable" garments), that made early rappers like Public Enemy or Tupac stop their music about gang violence and overthrowing governments, that outlawed "draw" gunfights unacceptable, etc. Those were all accepted by our culture and society and the government simply went along with it. If the government amended everything they saw, we probably would still be living in a primitive world.

[NostalgicPony 310]

I personally don't care for Romney as a politician, I think he's just as much of a statist as Obama is. But this veteran is seeing things the wrong way as well in my opinion.

 

For Romney, I beleive he is historically wrong with the U.S. Constitution defining marriage between a man and a women, because no where on the Constitution ses that, but it even ses nothing about the government even getting involved with the issue of marriage. He loses more points with me when he supports federal intervention on marriage which conflicts with the Constitution for only one class of couples, which is government institutional discrimination and it is un-constitutional.

 

(Just for the public record, I have nothing against same-sex marriage, but I'm really more worried about the economy and foreign policy for the U.S.).

Edited September 6, 2012 by NostalgicPony

[Homura Akemi 974]

The constitution never said anything about homosexual/gay/same-sex marriage because that wasn't something you talked about in 1776. Besides, a free country should allow people to live their dream, even if their version of an "American Dream" involves a man and man or a woman or a woman.

 

This man fought for my country. I don't care if he's gay. He deserves a loving spouse.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Dίsмαjo

[notdog1996 315]

I think if two people love each other, let them get married, even if marriage ruins the life of many persons(where I live at least). Anyway, he said way more stupid things than that, like saying that dog fights should be allowed because human fights are (can't believe he said that).

[Batbrony 16,055]

Most of the Constitution's original premise is totally shattered by this point in time, so who really gives a care?

 

Heck, even the Prohibition Amendment was cancelled out by another amendment, and now beer is one of the most consumed beverages in America lol.

 

And just what do you think the "original premise" of the Constitution is? Because as far as I'm concerned, the original premise of the Constitution is contained in the Preamble, in one of the most revolutionary openings to one of the most revolutionary, if not the most revolutionary, document in human history: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." My friend, if you believe that THAT is shattered, then by your logic, we are officially bucked up the flank at this point!!!

 

The Constitution, although certainly capable of being changed through amendments, was designed so that it would, overall, sufficiently lay out the laws of the land and a federal government of the U.S. that would both be able to maintain the newly formed union of the United States but also remain accountable first and foremost to the people. God help us all if THAT's irrelevant and shattered!

 

Oh, and since you brought up Prohibition; I know that you didn't say that it was conservatives who passed it, but there is an unfortunate misconception in American society today that Prohibition was the result of some sort of conservative movement, so let me just say this; Prohibition was the result of a Progressive (i.e. forerunners of the modern-day liberals) temperance movement that coincided a number of Progressive social issue movements, including most notably the women's rights movement. It was, overall, a disaster, and such regulation should, save for the most absolutely harmful materials, such as drugs, never be repeated again. However, funny thing is, it seems that liberals ARE trying to repeat that again, with the recent calls by Democratic officials such as Michael Bloomberg to ban soft drinks in cities such as New York. I'm sorry everypony, but in a country that prides itself as being the freest country in world history, I'm more than a little concerned when people start talking about regulating what soft drinks I put into my body. Next thing ya know, people will try to regulate what shows I watch, and say that "You can't watch MLP, that's for girls!!!" Can you imagine how horrid that'd be?

 

Finally, one last thing! I'm sorry to the original poster, because, again, I know you didn't bring this up, at least not in this post, but for everypony who thinks that all of the Founders were OK with slavery, that is simply not true. Yes, did the Constitution ultimately recognize slavery, of course, but it was simply that big of a reality in America at the time. At the time that the Constitution was written, it was largely a social and economic norm, especially in the South, that many of the Founders actually believed and hoped was on the course to die a natural death if the newly formed U.S. republic, founded on the idea that all men are created equal, were to work. Sadly, this did not prove to be the case, but it had nothing to do with racist inclinations; racism and social Darwinism as we know it would not emerge until later in the latter half of the nineteenth century, promoted by many of the same intellectual founders of the Progressive movement. Instead, something happened that the Founders did not foresee that cemented slavery's place as an institution in the South; a scientific revolution, coinciding with the Industrial Revolution in England. With the invention of the cotton gin and the rise of textile mills in England, cotton took off as a staple crop in the South, and slavery flourished as a result, with many slaveholders developing the mindset that it was truly necessitous to the Southern economy. True, in the last decade before the Civil War, a few racist inclinations might've begun showing up throughout some elements of Southern society, but those inclinations mostly had to do with ideas of cultural superiority. Now, has this been a defense of slavery? Not at all!!! I firmly believe with all of my heart that it was a reprehensible institution and am sad that it ever existed, much less flourished, in American society! However, being so inclined to study and understand history, I believe in the importance of understanding why such atrocities happen in human history in order to make sense of and understand them, and I love promoting everypony to do the same! I apologize if I went off on a bit of a tangent, but I just love educating as many ponies as I can about history, especially American history! Hope ya'll took something from this! God Bless America!

 

What about other lesser known social issues? There were no amendments or changes made in the Consitution that made pornography legal when it was "outlawed" in the early 1900's, that made today's shows like Family Guy or even Adventure Time more edgier than other works say in the 1950's, that made the "flappers" who they were in the Roaring Twenties (where in most cities it was illegal for a woman to not be wearing "exceptable" garments), that made early rappers like Public Enemy or Tupac stop their music about gang violence and overthrowing governments, that outlawed "draw" gunfights unacceptable, etc. Those were all accepted by our culture and society and the government simply went along with it. If the government amended everything they saw, we probably would still be living in a primitive world.

 

Again, the Constitution was simply designed to lay out the American government's structure, powers, and it's relationship with the American people! Where are you getting this notion that it was ever designed to help the government respond to every social issue, because, quite frankly, it wasn't? Ughhh, this is why I'm still mad at the Progressive movement; it's because of all of their social movements at the beginning of the 20th century that now people across the political spectrum believe that government should get involved in social issues, which it really, really shouldn't! So many of them are not matters of the law! Oh, don't get me wrong, women needed to get the vote, that was a good result, but seriously, those Progressives were involved in a lot more social movements than that, such as the temperance movements that eventually resulted in the disastrous Prohibition Amendment.

 

This. Constitutional amendments are rare and infrequent for a very good reason; it's something that should only be modified and tampered with when there is a damn good reason to do so, I would say - even if not everyone is apt to agree on what a 'good reason' is.

 

Plus, thankfully, the Founders realized it shouldn't happen often and made it very hard to happen; a Constitutional amendment requires support from at least 3/4 of the states! Like you said, there's a reason they don't happen too often, and rightfully so.

[Chapien 26]

I usually avoid political (and even economic) topics like the plague, not because I do not enjoy politics (politics interest me immensely, and I do consider them to be vitally important, and I do consider voting to still be, for the most part, important), but because my specific views have, on occasion, garnered me ostracism.

 

I will simply say this. Romney is an idiot. His social policies are backwards and dated, and his economic plans are basically to let the "invisible hand" and laissez faire economics solve our problems - and though laissez faire is not necessarily always a bad idea, it certainly didn't slow down the Great Depression. There's a reason I often compare Romney to Herbert Hoover and his predecessor Calvin Coolidge.

 

Now, I'm not a fan of Obama either, but he is, at least, mostly harmless.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Chapien

[irobern2857 95]

If you consider the Constitution and the Amendments obselete and irrelevant due to the date they were created, then you have absoluely no legal basis to even claim you have any rights, let alone the right to redefine marriage.

 

the constitution is still relevant regardless of its age because it simply defines the three branches of government and how to govern. there is nothing in it about actions of the time. and the latest amendment was written just a couple of years ago.

[Fluttermedic 86]

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.