• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wray

Member
Kosmo said:
I would expect his support to be about the same as any Democrat outside of 2008 would have - meaning about 20% of them will show up and those who were very supportive of him will likely be apathetic and not even bother.

Which is fine, cause 20% turnout means a blowout victory for Obama. You are forgetting that Generation Y is a MONSTROUS demographic in terms of sheer size, larger than the Baby Boomer generation. Generation X on the otherhand is a very small generation compared to those two.

There are over double the amount of (18-29) aged people than there were a decade ago. If the same % of that age demographic (18-29) shows up in 2012 as it did in 2000, the youth turnout will be double in size.

Like it or not, Republicans have a huge demographics disadvantage for the next generation or two. And that's not even factoring in the disadvantage they have with Latinos.

In before Mark Rubio...
 

Deku

Banned
Wray said:
Which is fine, cause 20% turnout means a blowout victory for Obama. You are forgetting that Generation Y is a MONSTROUS demographic in terms of sheer size, larger than the Baby Boomer generation. Generation X on the otherhand is a very small generation compared to those two.

Really? Sorry, I'm not trying to disagree but bolded part surprised me.

You have stats on this?
 

deadbeef

Member
If after they resolve this debt-limit crap, members of congress get on TV all self-congratulatory on how they overcame this crisis, and how great they are, I might blow a blood vessel. Shit is broke - they should all be ashamed of themselves.
 
eznark said:
Isn't like half of generation Y too young to vote?

quick and dirty from wikipedia:

Generation Y, also known as the Millennial Generation (or Millennials),[1][2] Generation Next,[3] Net Generation,[4] Echo Boomers,[5] describes the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates for when the Millennial generation starts and ends, and commentators have used birth dates ranging somewhere from the mid-1970s[6] to the mid-1990s.[7]

doesn't look like it. Even if we assume "mid 1990s" means 1995, that means nearly all of them will be voting age by 2012.

and as for size (again, Q&D from bloomberg)

Born during a baby bulge that demographers locate between 1979 and 1994, they are as young as five and as old as 20, with the largest slice still a decade away from adolescence. And at 60 million strong, more than three times the size of Generation X, they're the biggest thing to hit the American scene since the 72 million baby boomers. Still too young to have forged a name for themselves, they go by a host of taglines: Generation Y, Echo Boomers, or Millennium Generation.

http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_07/b3616001.htm

so not QUITE as large as the boomers, but 3 times the size of Gen X- and this is per bloomberg who is using 1979 to 1994. stretch those dates (say, 1977 to 1995) and it could indeed be larger than the boomers, though not by a lot.
 

eznark

Banned
Manmademan said:
quick and dirty from wikipedia:



doesn't look like it. Even if we assume "mid 1990s" means 1995, that means nearly all of them will be voting age by 2012.

and as for size (again, Q&D from bloomberg)



http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_07/b3616001.htm

so not QUITE as large as the boomers, but 3 times the size of Gen X.

I guess no one fucking knows or has agreed?

Experts differ on the actual start date of Generation Y. Some sources use starting dates as early as 1976.[43] Other sources use 1978, 1980, or 1982.[44][45][46] And while 1982 is a fairly common start date, some sources use even later dates.[26] Sources citing 1982 mark the end the generation either in the mid-1990s or the early 2000s, with 1982-1995 and 1982-2000 as common ranges.[8][9][10][47] Today, there are approximately 80 million Echo Boomers.[9]
 
eznark said:
I guess no one fucking knows or has agreed?

nope. there's no exact consensus on when a "generation" starts since it's largely a cultural thing, made from shared experiences that has no hard "dates."

I was born in 1978 and have been tossed into Gen X *and* Y all my life, depending on which media talking head I happened to be listening to. I identify a LOT more with X than Y though.

the boomers are a LOT easier to target since people tend to use basically "the end of WWII" as a marker, then end it when those people start having kids.

Gen X and Y are a lot hazier.
 

Wray

Member
Deku said:
Really? Sorry, I'm not trying to disagree but bolded part surprised me.

You have stats on this?

Ya Gen Y is slightly bigger than the Baby Boomer generation and both those generations are about double the size of Generation X.

Taken from multiple sources over the years. I'll hit google up later try to get some links later if you want.


Isn't like half of generation Y too young to vote?

There is no official scientific date or anything for when a specific generation starts and ends, but the general consensus is Generation Y are people who were born in the early 80's through around 2000. Most of those will be of age for 2012 and certainly for 2016.

Gen X is typically people born in the mid 60's to like 1980 or early 80's.

People born after 2000 are considered a different generation from generation Y. I believe they are called the Millennials?
 
Kosmo said:
Personally, I take the Ron Paul stance - leave marriage to the church and support civil unions. What's the big deal?
Separate but equal
and not actually even equal as we've come to find out with civil unions
is the big deal.
 
Mercury Fred said:
Separate but equal
and not actually even equal as we've come to find out with civil unions
is the big deal.

how are civil unions not equivalent to marriage, in anything other than a religious sense?
 

gcubed

Member
Mercury Fred said:
Separate but equal
and not actually even equal as we've come to find out with civil unions
is the big deal.

if in the eyes of the government everyone has civil unions, who cares what churchs are calling it? (this assumes making every union a civil union in the eyes of the government
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I would like to point out that there's a large difference between the top and bottom tiers of economics degrees and that having one doesn't mean one is qualified to comment on all topics of money (say...great depressions, preventing them; and/or fucking tax brackets, basic understanding).

I would also say that calling Bernanke "just a bankster" is woefully misinformed at best and nose-holding dishonesty at worst. If there's a person better prepared and educated to handle the various crises over the past several years, I challenge you find someone that spent their entire educational and professional careers getting ready for these moments.
 
Manmademan said:
how are civil unions not equivalent to marriage, in anything other than a religious sense?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902201.html


gcubed said:
if in the eyes of the government everyone has civil unions, who cares what churchs are calling it? (this assumes making every union a civil union in the eyes of the government
The only way this makes sense is if all marriages, gay and straight, become civil unions.

Anyway, it's really a moot point. Marriage equality has momentum and a majority of Americans are now in favor of equal marriage rights for gay people. If a few people get bent out of shape because their superstitions are ruffled, so be it. They can enjoy being dinosaurs. The rest of us will take equal treatment under the law, thanks.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Generational Birthdates:
1890s / 1900s - The Lost Generation (fought in WWI)
1910s / _____ - The Silent Generation (too young for WWI, too old for WWII)
1920s / 1930s - The "Greatest" Generation (grew up in Great Depression, fought in WWII)
1940s / 1950s - The Baby Boom (aka The "Worst" Generation)
1960s / 1970s - Gen X (aka "good music, but lazy cynics" generation)
1980s / 1990s - Gen Y (aka "echo boom" aka "ADHD + Pop Culture Refences!" generation)
2000s / 2010s - Millenials (aka "obese kids with asthma" generation)

Dates vary, but that's the general timeline. You can see that WWII made our nation strong and powerful, but ruined our collective pysche. Look what happense after just two gens. Fucking yuck.
 

Deku

Banned
PantherLotus said:
Generational Birthdates:
1890s / 1900s - The Lost Generation (fought in WWI)
1910s / _____ - The Silent Generation (too young for WWI, too old for WWII)
1920s / 1930s - The "Greatest" Generation (grew up in Great Depression, fought in WWII)
1940s / 1950s - The Baby Boom (aka The "Worst" Generation)
1960s / 1970s - Gen X (aka "good music, but lazy cynics" generation)
1980s / 1990s - Gen Y (aka "echo boom" aka "ADHD + Pop Culture Refences!" generation)
2000s / 2010s - Millenials (aka "obese kids with asthma" generation)

Dates vary, but that's the general timeline. You can see that WWII made our nation strong and powerful, but ruined our collective pysche. Look what happense after just two gens. Fucking yuck.


tom_brokaw_01.jpg
 

Cyan

Banned
PantherLotus said:
1980s / 1990s - Gen Y (aka "echo boom" aka "ADHD + Pop Culture Refences!" generation)
2000s / 2010s - Millenials (aka "obese kids with asthma" generation)
My understanding is that Gen Y and Millenials are the same thing.
 

Vanillalite

Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Cyan said:
My understanding is that Gen Y and Millenials are the same thing.

Everything post Gen X gets iffy cause it's still soooo new and current. A lot of people classify them all the same, and then again a lot don't because being born in 1981 verses 2001 could effectively make parents and kids in the same generation. LOL
 

Jackson50

Member
Mercury Fred said:
The only way this makes sense is if all marriages, gay and straight, become civil unions.

Anyway, it's really a moot point. Marriage equality has momentum and a majority of Americans are now in favor of equal marriage rights for gay people. If a few people get bent out of shape because their superstitions are ruffled, so be it. They can enjoy being dinosaurs. The rest of us will take equal treatment under the law, thanks.
I presume that is what Kosmo advocates. Personally, if the effect is practically indistinguishable from permitting gay marriage, I fail to see its appeal. It seems to be bald pandering to religious interests. It is a cop-out.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
polyh3dron said:
You can have an economics degree without dealing much in macroeconomics at all FYI.

Or more importantly, the dude could just be a lying fuckface that's trying to appeal to tea baggers.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Dude Abides said:
Echo Boomers are the largest generation since the Boomers, but they aren't larger than the Boomers themselves.

Why are they called Echo Boomers?
 
PantherLotus said:
Generational Birthdates:
1890s / 1900s - The Lost Generation (fought in WWI)
1910s / _____ - The Silent Generation (too young for WWI, too old for WWII)
1920s / 1930s - The "Greatest" Generation (grew up in Great Depression, fought in WWII)
1940s / 1950s - The Baby Boom (aka The "Worst" Generation)
1960s / 1970s - Gen X (aka "good music, but lazy cynics" generation)
1980s / 1990s - Gen Y (aka "echo boom" aka "ADHD + Pop Culture Refences!" generation)
2000s / 2010s - Millenials (aka "obese kids with asthma" generation)

Dates vary, but that's the general timeline. You can see that WWII made our nation strong and powerful, but ruined our collective pysche. Look what happense after just two gens. Fucking yuck.

Not to be snappy, but...

This is an incredibly inaccurate summary of the generations. One generation was the greatest because they fought in a war and another generation is bad despite massive accomplishments? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are baby boomers and are great in spite of the fact that they've never stormed beaches or had their heads blown off. You could name dozens of other examples of great baby boomers. Mark Zuckerberg is from Gen Y, but he's the youngest billionaire ever.

I was born in the 90s (and would be considered a "Millennial" in a correct chart), but I've never identified that strongly with the idea of generations. Every generation just talks about how shitty the next couple are and how dysfunctional they'll be, and life goes on as normal. I've seen brilliant kids my age who could very well go on to be president or the next great software entrepreneur. The worst part is that you're not even from the generations you claim are so great. You're self hating. It's pathetic.

And remember, it's only just recently that the Baby Boomers started to take power. The "Greatest Generation" sent young men to die in the Middle East. They led the world to several economic crises. They're far from perfect. Hell, they're the parents of the generations you deem so inferior. They're great at taking bullets and bad at raising children. They're the best!

Also, the generation names are really uncreative and boring. The Baby Boomers have a terrible name, but it's still iconic. I always assumed Generation X was a kind of social commentary on the age group; that they were distant and unique and jaded and rarely appreciated, much like the letter X is rarely used and appreciated in the alphabet. I thought that was actually really creative. Then the name Generation Y came along and I realized it was just a giant, unoriginal middle finger to the age group.

Anyways I guess my whole point is that every generation has flaws and that the idea of a superior generation (or "it all went downhill from there") is just a fabrication.
 
Mr. Serious Business said:
Not to be snappy, but...

This is an incredibly inaccurate summary of the generations. One generation was the greatest because they fought in a war and another generation is bad despite massive accomplishments? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are baby boomers and are great in spite of the fact that they've never stormed beaches or had their heads blown off. You could name dozens of other examples of great baby boomers. Mark Zuckerberg is from Gen Y, but he's the youngest billionaire ever.

I was born in the 90s (and would be considered a "Millennial" in a correct chart), but I've never identified that strongly with the idea of generations. Every generation just talks about how shitty the next couple are and how dysfunctional they'll be, and life goes on as normal. I've seen brilliant kids my age who could very well go on to be president or the next great software entrepreneur. The worst part is that you're not even from the generations you claim are so great. You're self hating. It's pathetic.

And remember, it's only just recently that the Baby Boomers started to take power. The "Greatest Generation" sent young men to die in the Middle East. They led the world to several economic crises. They're far from perfect. Hell, they're the parents of the generations you deem so inferior. They're great at taking bullets and bad at raising children. They're the best!

Also, the generation names are really uncreative and boring. The Baby Boomers have a terrible name, but it's still iconic. I always assumed Generation X was a kind of social commentary on the age group; that they were distant and unique and jaded and rarely appreciated, much like the letter X is rarely used and appreciated in the alphabet. I thought that was actually really creative. Then the name Generation Y came along and I realized it was just a giant, unoriginal middle finger to the age group.

Anyways I guess my whole point is that every generation has flaws and that the idea of a superior generation (or "it all went downhill from there") is just a fabrication.

....You do realize that Panther Lotus didn't make those labels right?
 
TacticalFox88 said:
....You do realize that Panther Lotus didn't make those labels right?

If my previous post wasn't so serious I would have posted a snarky sarcastic comment. Unfortunately, it was. So yes, I know he didn't make these. He still posted them. And so I can rant about how wrong they are.
 

gcubed

Member
Mr. Serious Business said:
Not to be snappy, but...

This is an incredibly inaccurate summary of the generations. One generation was the greatest because they fought in a war and another generation is bad despite massive accomplishments? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are baby boomers and are great in spite of the fact that they've never stormed beaches or had their heads blown off. You could name dozens of other examples of great baby boomers. Mark Zuckerberg is from Gen Y, but he's the youngest billionaire ever.

I was born in the 90s (and would be considered a "Millennial" in a correct chart), but I've never identified that strongly with the idea of generations. Every generation just talks about how shitty the next couple are and how dysfunctional they'll be, and life goes on as normal. I've seen brilliant kids my age who could very well go on to be president or the next great software entrepreneur. The worst part is that you're not even from the generations you claim are so great. You're self hating. It's pathetic.

And remember, it's only just recently that the Baby Boomers started to take power. The "Greatest Generation" sent young men to die in the Middle East. They led the world to several economic crises. They're far from perfect. Hell, they're the parents of the generations you deem so inferior. They're great at taking bullets and bad at raising children. They're the best!

Also, the generation names are really uncreative and boring. The Baby Boomers have a terrible name, but it's still iconic. I always assumed Generation X was a kind of social commentary on the age group; that they were distant and unique and jaded and rarely appreciated, much like the letter X is rarely used and appreciated in the alphabet. I thought that was actually really creative. Then the name Generation Y came along and I realized it was just a giant, unoriginal middle finger to the age group.

Anyways I guess my whole point is that every generation has flaws and that the idea of a superior generation (or "it all went downhill from there") is just a fabrication.

the greatest generation was labeled that for more reasons then their ability to "take a bullet"

sorry, but 3 people dont change the course of a generation. The baby boomers have become labeled as they are due to the massive me first pervasive mess of selfishness they exude
 

Chichikov

Member
PantherLotus said:
If there's a person better prepared and educated to handle the various crises over the past several years, I challenge you find someone that spent their entire educational and professional careers getting ready for these moments.
His biography may say 'yes', but his actions and results scream "no, no, no!"
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Poll: Americans want compromise on debt
By Mark Murray
Deputy political director
NBC News
updated 7/19/2011 7:01:20 PM ET


ap_obama_debt_sc_110714_wg.jpg




As Democrats and Republicans wrestle over spending and deficits in advance of an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling, most Americans want their political leaders to compromise rather stand their ground, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Strong majorities of Democrats and independents prefer that Democratic congressional leaders make compromises in this budget debate, while almost 70 percent of independents want Republican leaders to do the same. And nearly six in 10 favor President Barack Obama’s proposal to lower the federal deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years by cutting federal spending, raising tax revenue from the wealthy and reducing some Medicare spending.

By comparison, only about a third of respondents prefer the House Republican proposal to reduce the deficit by $2.5 trillion over 10 years through cutting spending alone and not raising additional revenues
.
Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, says the public’s message can be summed up in one phrase: “Compromise and get it done.”

“The public feels like this is a real problem that needs a real solution,” Hart explains. “And they want compromise by both parties.”
But there’s one hurdle to this compromise: A majority of Republicans — and nearly two-thirds of Tea Party supporters — want GOP leaders to hold their ground.

Increased support for raising debt ceiling
This NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll comes as a bipartisan group of U.S. senators released a proposal Tuesday that would cut discretionary spending, reform the entitlement programs Medicare and Medicaid, and overhaul the tax code.

Obama called the proposal “a very significant step, adding: “The hope is that everyone seizes this opportunity.”
The survey also comes as the Treasury Department says it will exhaust its borrowing authority on Aug. 2 unless the debt ceiling is increased.
In the poll, a plurality (by 38 percent to 31 percent) says the debt ceiling should be raised, which is sharp reversal from June, when a plurality (39 percent to 28 percent) opposed that move.

Read the full poll here (.pdf)

When told that failing to raise the debt ceiling could jeopardize payments to Social Security recipients and military personnel, 49 percent support increasing it. And 43 percent oppose it when told that an increase would make it harder to reduce the deficit.
“You are watching opinion shift as people are learning more about the debate,” says McInturff, the GOP pollster.
Fifty-five percent of all respondents — including 63 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of independents and 47 percent of Republicans — believe that not raising the ceiling would be problematic.

That's compared with just 18 percent who say it wouldn't be a real and serious problem. But that number jumps up to 33 percent among self-identified Tea Party supporters.

Obama’s deficit proposal vs. the House GOP’s
As far as the differing approaches to raise the debt ceiling, 58 percent favor Obama’s approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years by cutting spending, increasing revenue through taxing the wealthy and lowering Medicare’s spending.
Meanwhile, 36 percent support the House Republican proposal to reduce the deficit by $2.5 trillion through only spending cuts.

Poll: Failure to raise debt ceiling seen as problematic
The poll also makes clear that the public is more open to raising taxes to balance the budget than it is making cuts and changes to entitlement programs.
Sixty-two percent support raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy if that’s the only way to get a debt-ceiling agreement in Congress. But 52 percent say they oppose making changes and cuts in Social Security and Medicare if that’s the only way to get an agreement.

And what happens if the debt ceiling isn’t increased and the federal government is unable to meet its obligations? According to the survey, 39 percent would blame congressional Republicans, 35 percent would blame Obama and congressional Democrats, and 17 percent would blame both.

But McInturff and Hart caution that those numbers could change if the federal government does default on its payments. “Attitudes prior to the event always change,” Hart says. “The public switches on a dime.”

The economy, Obama, and 2012
Yet when it comes to the public’s attitude on the economy and the country’s direction, it hasn’t changed much. Only 26 percent believe the country’s economy will improve in the next 12 months (down three points from June), while 45 percent think the worst is still ahead (up four points from last month).
Perhaps most significantly, 67 percent say the nation is headed in the wrong direction, the highest mark in Obama’s presidency.

“The public’s psyche, in looking at this economic situation, is very down,” Hart says. “There is no sense that we’ve turned a corner.”
But so far, Obama’s overall numbers have held up despite that pessimism.
The president’s overall job-approval rating stands at 47 percent, which is down two points from last month.

Poll: Bachmann's on the rise
Moreover, Obama leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by seven points in a hypothetical 2012 general-election match up, 48 percent to 41 percent. And he leads Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., by 15 points, 50 percent to 35 percent.
But the margin is much closer when the president is paired with a generic Republican: 42 percent say they’d probably vote for Obama, while 39 percent say they’d probably back the eventual GOP nominee.

Bachmann surges into second place
In the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney remains the national leader, with 30 percent of GOP primary voters saying he’s their first choice. Yet Bachmann has surged into second place with support from 16 percent of GOP primary voters. A month ago — before she announced her presidential bid — Bachmann was just at 3 percent.

(Among Tea Party supporters, Romney narrowly leads Bachmann, 24 percent to 20 percent, while Bachmann is ahead among Republican primary voters who identify themselves as very conservative, 24 percent to 22 percent.)
Romney and Bachmann are followed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (who hasn’t yet decided on a presidential run) at 11 percent, Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 9 percent, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 8 percent.
Behind them are ex-Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain at 5 percent, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum at 3 percent, and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman tied at 2 percent.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was conducted of 1,000 adults (200 reached by cell phone) from July 14-17, and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

###############

Holy poll numbers Batman. Looks like more and more people are paying attention to the debt ceiling crap. The Tea Party looks to still be the hold outs. smh.
 
gcubed said:
the greatest generation was labeled that for more reasons then their ability to "take a bullet"

sorry, but 3 people dont change the course of a generation. The baby boomers have become labeled as they are due to the massive me first pervasive mess of selfishness they exude

I find it questionable that war somehow makes a generation morally superior or better. I realize their struggles in the depression, but people still struggle in many parts of the world with this stuff every day. People in the depression were living MUCH better than people 100 years before them. Time raises living standards.

I also listed 2 examples because listing every famous/successful/innovative baby boomer would take forever. Remember that many of the rich fat-cats that enacted terrible political policies in the 80s were NOT baby boomers. They couldn't have been. They were from the super-special-awesome generation.
 
TacticalFox88 said:
This fucking infuriates me! Goddammit!
It is just plain crazy. We would end up paying just as much except instead of getting services, we would just be servicing a higher interest rate.

kwai.jpg

Madness! Madness!

Actually, we would probably end paying MORE and getting LESS.
 
“And they want compromise by both parties

I suppose they mean something halfway between Obama's already massively compromised proposal and the GOP's extreme proposal, which ends up being what the GOP wanted in the first place.
 

Cyan

Banned
gcubed said:
the greatest generation was labeled that for more reasons then their ability to "take a bullet"
Seriously.

They were labeled that for their massive sense of superiority and self-righteousness.
 

besada

Banned
gcubed said:
the greatest generation was labeled that for more reasons then their ability to "take a bullet"

sorry, but 3 people dont change the course of a generation. The baby boomers have become labeled as they are due to the massive me first pervasive mess of selfishness they exude

Their "greatest" parents did a pretty piss poor job of raising them, then. The "greatest" generation is called that because Brokaw loved his daddy, and the people who owned the media when it was coined were all members of that generation.

Some of America's worst excesses happened on their watch. They weren't some sort of moral paragon that anyone should be looking up to. They sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to die in several pointless wars, even after learning first hand how terrible war could be. Yay, they had a hand in beating the Nazi's and they survived the great depression. Who gives a fuck? They also started Korea and Vietnam, not to mention treating S. America as their personal shitbox.

The only people who believe that shit are people who don't know anything about history.
 

Jenga

Banned
besada said:
The only people who believe that shit are people who don't know anything about history.
they killed a lot of japanese and germans

what with their mecha hitlers and gundams that is an accomplishment
 

mj1108

Member
mckmas8808 said:
Holy poll numbers Batman. Looks like more and more people are paying attention to the debt ceiling crap. The Tea Party looks to still be the hold outs. smh.

The longer the Republicans play this game, the worse it will be for them in the public opinion. They really need to just agree to the balanced approach and put this behind them.

But I really hope they drag this out more and drown even further into political oblivion.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
Kosmo said:
LOL, you guys are hilarious. I didn't say that it's good or bad that he does it. Politically, it's a great strategy. If you're looking for politicians to take principled stands, then it's spineless.


Except you are completely wrong.
 
mj1108 said:
The longer the Republicans play this game, the worse it will be for them in the public opinion. They really need to just agree to the balanced approach and put this behind them.

But I really hope they drag this out more and drown even further into political oblivion.

I don't. This is not something anybody should be playing with for political gains. While it may be the Repubs demise in the long term its going to hurt EVERYBODY for quite some time if we don't increase the ceiling.
 

Kosmo

Banned
Jackson50 said:
I presume that is what Kosmo advocates. Personally, if the effect is practically indistinguishable from permitting gay marriage, I fail to see its appeal. It seems to be bald pandering to religious interests. It is a cop-out.

So separation of church and state...but we should force churches to recognize gay marriage? I'm not sure I see your point.
 
LovingSteam said:
I don't. This is not something anybody should be playing with for political gains. While it may be the Repubs demise in the long term its going to hurt EVERYBODY for quite some time if we don't increase the ceiling.
Considering that if the Debt Ceiling isn't raised, Wall Street and the Rich's investments will implode, you'd think they'd have increased the bitch the minute they had the chance.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Kosmo said:
So separation of church and state...but we should force churches to recognize gay marriage? I'm not sure I see your point.
That's not what he said at all.

But "equality" means that churches should not be allowed to prevent a gay couple from marrying in a church. If they do, they should lose their tax-exempt status.
 

Lambtron

Unconfirmed Member
Kosmo said:
So separation of church and state...but we should force churches to recognize gay marriage? I'm not sure I see your point.
Churches can do whatever the hell they want. Your marriage isn't recognized by the government until you get a marriage license from your state. Currently, same sex couples can't do this. If churches want to be a bunch of bigots, that's their prerogative
though I'd argue at this point they shouldn't be offered tax benefits of being a church.

A legal "marriage" is separate from the religious sacrament of "marriage," in my mind. I was married by an officiant (who happened to be Catholic) in my wife's back yard. I did not get married in the church, and have no plans to.
 

Cyan

Banned
Kosmo said:
So separation of church and state...but we should force churches to recognize gay marriage? I'm not sure I see your point.
wat.

Marriages are also recognized by the state. The point he's making is that if the state changes terminology so that it recognizes "civil unions" but not "marriages", that would be a cop-out and pandering. The entire point of it would be to keep religious folks happy by letting them keep their special word.
 
Kosmo said:
So separation of church and state...but we should force churches to recognize gay marriage? I'm not sure I see your point.
No one has ever asked for or suggested such a thing. Get that pathetic clearance rack strawman the fuck out of here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom