Just plain vote!!!

Who whould you vote for

  • Barack Obama / Joe Biden

    Votes: 30 61.2%
  • John McCain / Sarah Palin

    Votes: 19 38.8%

  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
RE: Just plain vote!

Panda said:
The reason the people do not want same-sex marriage is because they are there following what their religion tells them. I don't think that there trying to be offensive they just trust their religion though its not being open-minded banning same-sex marriage but, I think you should be open minded to the people you said who should mind there own buisness.

IMO, it's really not right to forbid same-sex couples the right to marry just because of what your religion says. How would any of you like it if some religion that doesn't like heterosexual people marrying was in control of the government, and forbid different-sex marriages? That's what it's like now to homosexual people.
 
RE: Just plain vote!

Im not defending religion im just saying those people who are saying that they don't want same sex marriage are probably religous and that is how they were raised. ( Not trying to make this a religion debate )
 
RE: Just plain vote!

Panda said:
Im not defending religion im just saying those people who are saying that they don't want same sex marriage are probably religous and that is how they were raised. ( Not trying to make this a religion debate )

BINGOOOO!
 
RE: Just plain vote!

.::n00bmuffin::. said:
Panda said:
The reason the people do not want same-sex marriage is because they are there following what their religion tells them. I don't think that there trying to be offensive they just trust their religion though its not being open-minded banning same-sex marriage but, I think you should be open minded to the people you said who should mind there own buisness.

IMO, it's really not right to forbid same-sex couples the right to marry just because of what your religion says. How would any of you like it if some religion that doesn't like heterosexual people marrying was in control of the government, and forbid different-sex marriages? That's what it's like now to homosexual people.
Then that country would die off in population pretty fast. Also, I love how people instantly assume that same-sex marriage has to do with religion. Why don't people associate voting with religion? :/
 
RE: Just plain vote!

The way I see it, we don't have to worry about it.

McCain will have die.
Obama will be assinated.

VOTE FOR THE VICE PRESEDINT.

lol, JK.

I personally would vote for McCain, just because Obama has his head in the clouds.
 
RE: Just plain vote!

Moneyking63 said:
Obamas in-expierence scares me, he has only been a senator, he wants to raise taxes, and sudden withdrawl from Iraq could cause alot of problems with surges in violence, however what scares me the most is Iran and their nucleur weapons, I think that is a serious issue. And with the economy the way it is today, higher taxes is NOT going to help.

what good is experience if it isn't going to be put to use? all mccain will do is continue with bush's administration. any political analyst from the last ten years could do the same thing.

plus, it isn't america's job to police the world. there are plenty of problems in our own country that need to be dealt with. sure, we were attacked, but not by iraq, iran, sadam hussein, or anyone else besides al quaida, who we are letting roam free because it is much more important to acquire oil refineries so that all of the officials in washington whos families own oil companies can continue to get rich as they gouge prices.

we are forcing our policies and our way of life on people in the middle east who do not want it. otherwise they would have rebelled against the government themselves. this has happened many times throughout history, we know it's a posiblility. plus, since we've supposedly accomplished our mission, we shouldn't be over there anymore anyways.

we are essentially terrorists to the iraqis right now.

one more thing is that there would be no need to raise taxes if we pulled out of iraq because the war costs billions, maybe trillions of dollars a year which our country would have to put to better use.


Papi/Manny said:
Both are jokes. Honestly, if you really think either one will bring someting "new" to the table, you've been in a cave or have never read anything on politcally history.

Regardless of what "new" changes either canidate may bring, obama definitely has better policies then mccain and since those two are running for president, one of them has to make it into the white house and this country would be better off without mccain in office.
 
RE: Just plain vote!

darkrai1246 said:
Panda said:
Im not defending religion im just saying those people who are saying that they don't want same sex marriage are probably religous and that is how they were raised. ( Not trying to make this a religion debate )

BINGOOOO!
So the people who aren't religious or aren't into it as much instantly have to obey what your religion says just because you're the majority? Being the majority instantly gives you the right to discriminate others? The Jews were a minority... So were the handicapped, the black, the gipsies, ... Guess what a man with way too much power and your way of thinking could do to the world? Or wait, don't guess, grab a history book.
You have no rights to say what religion others must follow, you're trying to send us back to the middle ages and the ancien regime, it seems, because if you let your religion decide 1 law, why not make it the national religion? Why not hunt down and kill those who do not believe? If you don't give them freedom, why give them life in the 1st place?

About Obama having his heads in the clouds. 1) What he's trying to do is not impossible, 2) a President who at least wants to achieve something > a president who wants to achieve nothing but continue what's already happening, nothing good.

And everyone read foo895's arguement about the war again because it's really good ;)
 
RE: Just plain vote!

darkrai1246 said:
Panda said:
Im not defending religion im just saying those people who are saying that they don't want same sex marriage are probably religous and that is how they were raised. ( Not trying to make this a religion debate )

BINGOOOO!

i wish people would just learn to think for themselves.
 
RE: Just plain vote!

Common sense is not common around here. See, the bible never gave a good reason as to why homosexuals were sinful, which means that your justification is in hindsight as a fragile way to try to back your arguement. I find it a violation of civil rights to be refused marriage if they are in a relationship. Are we going to deny them what can be seen as "official" happiness because they cannot reproduce?

Sperm banks are there for a reason. WEll, not just that reason, at least. I'm pretty sure homosexuals often donate or recieve from the sperm bank as they too desire to have children. And no, there's nothing wrong with that either. Regardless, the birth rate is slowing down because of the rise of contraception and abortion (which I won't go into) which is also the rise of one-night stands and STIs. Which means homosexuals are in no way to blame to slowing down birth rates, they're probably increasing it.

From what I hear, having an old traditionalist is worse than an inexperienced forward-thinking. What would you do, shuffle around looking at your feet, or jump ahead and hope for the best?
(Granted that's a pretty bad analogy but eh, I'm pretty sure there's a better one somewhere)
 
RE: Just plain vote!

C-m would kill me for doing this again, but yeah, I have to do it. This is my personal stand:

I'm a Catholic. Catholicism, and most other denominations of Christianity or other religions for that matter, are generally against the legalisation of same-sex marriage. Personally, I have no opinion on this. I am heterosexual, and I've never known a single homosexual in real life, so I can't say what it is. I suppose homosexuality is more toned down (if not, kept in the dark) in an Asian society. After all, Asian culture is generally more conservative than Western culture, with the latter being more open to changes, and being more outspoken in fighting for human rights.

While I am not in the position to comment on the so-called "morality" of homosexuality, I must admit that I have to disagree with my religion's current stand on fighting the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This does not mean that I'm not a holy follower of Jesus Christ. Well, then again, I'm not a fanatic, I just live my life doing what I do, applying my values that I have been taught in Church or by my family, but that does not mean that I go around forcing the religion on others.

I have never believed in forceful evangelisation. All along, there are those devoted followers of god (the positive name) and fanatics (the negative name) going around asking people to go out on the street and grab people to join your church. Once I was walking near the Tower of London when a young woman approached my mother and asked "do you know about God?" She cornered my mother for a full ten minutes talking about the wonders of Jesus Christ while I waited to enter the tourist attraction. In the end, we had to cancel our plans and we returned to our hotel.

At school, I have classmates going around "hey wanna go to my church". Not only one classmate, for that matter. Some Christians (Protestant denominations of course, not the lazy Catholics like me) go around doing that. I am still an opposer of forcing the religion on other people. I believe everyone has a right to believe in what they want, and no one of a different religion should be discriminated for being a part of another religion, no one that is religious should ridicule an athiest, and no athiest should condemn the religious for being foolish and believing in an old man in the sky when the Theory of Evolution sounds so much better.

This is a free world. People are entitled to what they want. And therefore, this is why I do not believe that same-sex marriage should be banned at all. Even though I do understand my religion's rules and will continue to follow it, even though it doesn't make sense that much to me, I think, as I said before, that this should not make us impose our rules on others. We should not go all out and make life difficult for others. They have their right to feel what they want. It's in their nature to feel that way. Let's say you were born person. You can't change that retardedness, can you?

What I'm trying to say is, if you have a religion, by all means, continue to be religious, and follow what is good, not whatever your religion tells you. If your church minister tells you to go out and kill the Pope in the name of Jesus for the Pope in the Antichrist, will you do it? If a religious figure at any place of worship tells you to go and murder the child of that unmarried couple, will you do it? Don't follow things blindly.

I remain a Catholic because the religion has been instilled in me since I was born and I'm not going to waste my time changing my life just to satisfy the athiests out there who want no old men in the sky, or the Protestants who want the Pope down. Why should I make the effort to go all out and become an athiest, when practicing my religion is part of my daily habit? It's my choice, and I want it that way. Why should any of you impose your views on others? This is the key reason why religious topics are disallowed on this forum, which is meant to be family-friendly.

Personally, I am against the idea of sperm banks, as after all, the egg does not belong to one of the parents. I have never looked upon divorced couples well, not because of religion, mind you, but for the sake of the child. You may say that the child may be able to still lead a normal life, and that adoption is basically the same thing, but remember that children were adopted as they were doomed to poverty anyway, while children with separated parents were innocent.

Then again, I am unable to understand the Church's view on abortion. In the case of a sexual assault, would not it be fair for a woman to apply for an abortion. Once again, this is why I say, don't believe foolishly in whatever your religion says. Religion today has been corrupted so much by humans that it's not it once originally was. Or was it created by humans anyway? I don't know, but I don't care either. It's what I am, and it doesn't hurt anyone, so I'll stay this way.
 
RE: Just plain vote!

Heavenly Spoon :F said:
darkrai1246 said:
Panda said:
Im not defending religion im just saying those people who are saying that they don't want same sex marriage are probably religous and that is how they were raised. ( Not trying to make this a religion debate )

BINGOOOO!
So the people who aren't religious or aren't into it as much instantly have to obey what your religion says just because you're the majority? Being the majority instantly gives you the right to discriminate others? The Jews were a minority... So were the handicapped, the black, the gipsies, ... Guess what a man with way too much power and your way of thinking could do to the world? Or wait, don't guess, grab a history book.
You have no rights to say what religion others must follow, you're trying to send us back to the middle ages and the ancien regime, it seems, because if you let your religion decide 1 law, why not make it the national religion? Why not hunt down and kill those who do not believe? If you don't give them freedom, why give them life in the 1st place?

About Obama having his heads in the clouds. 1) What he's trying to do is not impossible, 2) a President who at least wants to achieve something > a president who wants to achieve nothing but continue what's already happening, nothing good.

And everyone read foo895's arguement about the war again because it's really good ;)

Dude I never said you have to follow religion. I just stood up for the people who are against homosexuality because I can see where there stand point is and stop twisting my words.

Btw this is my sn from like two years ago im still Panda.
 
RE: Just plain vote!

And I'm saying it's not a valid standpoint.

And I was kinda talking to darkrai1246, because he agrees with that standpoint.

"Why change?" is very conservative, you know that right, NN? If nobody ever cared about change, we'd still have an absolute monarchy. Care or don't care, I don't care, changing you won't do much anyways :p Just know that I have absolutely no sympathy for people who don't want to change just because of habit. But you probably knew this already, so whatever.
 
RE: Just plain vote!

Birth rate slowing down is GOOD. And I'm not saying we should kill people, I'm saying things like:
More people-more cars-more pollution-more huge tidal/heat waves
More people-less food-more starving people-:(

So(although this might sound REALLY rude, if it does, sorry) we should stop trying to save poorer countries, because soon they'll want cars and money too and then we're really screwed, stop trying to have huge families and have fun :)


Oh, and I like Obama because Mccain is too old and, as many people stated, bush like... Oh yeah, I still dunno why I posted this.
 
RE: Just plain vote!

Yearly Lump Wages said:
Birth rate slowing down is GOOD. And I'm not saying we should kill people, I'm saying things like:
More people-more cars-more pollution-more huge tidal/heat waves
More people-less food-more starving people-:(

So(although this might sound REALLY rude, if it does, sorry) we should stop trying to save poorer countries, because soon they'll want cars and money too and then we're really screwed, stop trying to have huge families and have fun :)


Oh, and I like Obama because Mccain is too old and, as many people stated, bush like... Oh yeah, I still dunno why I posted this.
Less people-less people to do jobs-more work for everybody
Less people-less smart people-less devolpments-huge tidal wave

It works both ways. Also, I don't see why where you're born should determine if you life a craptacular life or a decent one (decent=some luxaries). Btw, huge familes is a thing of the past. People used to have familes of 8+. You rarely see that anymore. Also, people will look back and be like "You know what, bush wasn't that bad. He had alot of questionable things about him but he kept the country in one piece under unquestionablely tough times".
 
RE: Just plain vote!

Papi/Manny said:
Yearly Lump Wages said:
Birth rate slowing down is GOOD. And I'm not saying we should kill people, I'm saying things like:
More people-more cars-more pollution-more huge tidal/heat waves
More people-less food-more starving people-:(

So(although this might sound REALLY rude, if it does, sorry) we should stop trying to save poorer countries, because soon they'll want cars and money too and then we're really screwed, stop trying to have huge families and have fun :)


Oh, and I like Obama because Mccain is too old and, as many people stated, bush like... Oh yeah, I still dunno why I posted this.
Less people-less people to do jobs-more work for everybody
Less people-less smart people-less devolpments-huge tidal wave

It works both ways. Also, I don't see why where you're born should determine if you life a craptacular life or a decent one (decent=some luxaries). Btw, huge familes is a thing of the past. People used to have familes of 8+. You rarely see that anymore. Also, people will look back and be like "You know what, bush wasn't that bad. He had alot of questionable things about him but he kept the country in one piece under unquestionablely tough times".

unquestionabley tough times that he himself helped create, and it wasn't bush himself that helped keep the country together. he doesn't do much of anything, we have to look to the senate and congress for these things too.

oh, and just because there are less people doesn't mean that there will be less smart people. the ratio would be the same. also, we have rampant unemployment in this country and less people means less unemployed which means lower taxes for those who are employed because we wouldn't need to pay so much money into the national welfare system.
 
McCain/ Palin '08

Mccain will not be another bush b/c he is too liberal i may not be old enoff 2 vote but i know we dont need obama

he is too inexperienced and i am tired of people comparing obama to palin because shes not running for president, mccain is. besides shes more experienced when she was a governer and obama was a senator.
Governer is higher up than senator.

i dont like same sex marrage, but i dont think they should stop it because this is a free country. i support abortion because of stem cell resarch

...so I say NObama '08
 
RE: Just plain vote!

HEY HEAVENLY SPOON WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF JESUS IS WHITE! NOW LETS ALL VOTE FOR OBAMA BECAUSE ALL OF ARE PRESIDENTS ARE WHITE AND WE NEED A BLACK PRESIDENT!!!

^EPIC fail^
 
RE: Just plain vote!

foo895 said:
Papi/Manny said:
Yearly Lump Wages said:
Birth rate slowing down is GOOD. And I'm not saying we should kill people, I'm saying things like:
More people-more cars-more pollution-more huge tidal/heat waves
More people-less food-more starving people-:(

So(although this might sound REALLY rude, if it does, sorry) we should stop trying to save poorer countries, because soon they'll want cars and money too and then we're really screwed, stop trying to have huge families and have fun :)


Oh, and I like Obama because Mccain is too old and, as many people stated, bush like... Oh yeah, I still dunno why I posted this.
Less people-less people to do jobs-more work for everybody
Less people-less smart people-less devolpments-huge tidal wave

It works both ways. Also, I don't see why where you're born should determine if you life a craptacular life or a decent one (decent=some luxaries). Btw, huge familes is a thing of the past. People used to have familes of 8+. You rarely see that anymore. Also, people will look back and be like "You know what, bush wasn't that bad. He had alot of questionable things about him but he kept the country in one piece under unquestionablely tough times".

unquestionabley tough times that he himself helped create, and it wasn't bush himself that helped keep the country together. he doesn't do much of anything, we have to look to the senate and congress for these things too.

oh, and just because there are less people doesn't mean that there will be less smart people. the ratio would be the same. also, we have rampant unemployment in this country and less people means less unemployed which means lower taxes for those who are employed because we wouldn't need to pay so much money into the national welfare system.
The ratio is the same but mathmatically theres less. Thats just common sence. Less people also equals less people to take chances and open small businesses, buy products and boost the economy through work, buying houses, etc. Need willing people to keep the economy going.
 
RE: Just plain vote!

choccy417 said:
McCain/ Palin '08

Mccain will not be another bush because he is too liberal I may not be old enoff 2 vote but I know we don't need obama

he is too inexperienced and I am tired of people comparing obama to palin because shes not running for president, mccain is. besides shes more experienced when she was a governer and obama was a senator.
Governer is higher up than senator.

I don't like same sex marrage, but I don't think they should stop it because this is a free country. I support abortion because of stem cell resarch

...so I say NObama '08

John McCain is a war monger. That is all he cares about. He said he would rather lose an election then lose the war. We need progress, not regression.

Palin brings nothing at all to the table. She can't even manage her family. McCain only chose her to get the women's vote.

No matter how much experience McCain has (which I'd like for someone to tell me exactly what that is. just because he's old doesn't mean he has done it all) it is useless if he isn't going to put it to use. Someone a few posts back has already stated this. How much experience did George W. Bush have? His administration messed things up almost to the point of no return and he was the more experienced canidate in both of his elections.

Obama may be inexperienced, he may be young, but he wants to change things for the better. If he can't do it then he could always step down or be impeached. He has experienced Mr. Biden as his vice president.

Which brings me to my next point here: Republicans slam Obama for his lack of experience then slam him again for saying he wants change even though he chose and older experienced running mate. They really need to make up their minds about what they are going to use against Obama. Their saying that Obama is more like a celebrity is a wasted effort as well. Yes he is as popular as a movie star. Thats because he wants to bring change and the majority of the people in this country, regardless of political party, agree with that.

Come to think of it, the McCain administration should probably just stop with the smear campaign and focus on the issues like Obama is doing. He's not taking any cheap shots at McCain.




Papi/Manny said:
foo895 said:
Papi/Manny said:
Yearly Lump Wages said:
Birth rate slowing down is GOOD. And I'm not saying we should kill people, I'm saying things like:
More people-more cars-more pollution-more huge tidal/heat waves
More people-less food-more starving people-:(

So(although this might sound REALLY rude, if it does, sorry) we should stop trying to save poorer countries, because soon they'll want cars and money too and then we're really screwed, stop trying to have huge families and have fun :)


Oh, and I like Obama because Mccain is too old and, as many people stated, bush like... Oh yeah, I still dunno why I posted this.
Less people-less people to do jobs-more work for everybody
Less people-less smart people-less devolpments-huge tidal wave

It works both ways. Also, I don't see why where you're born should determine if you life a craptacular life or a decent one (decent=some luxaries). Btw, huge familes is a thing of the past. People used to have familes of 8+. You rarely see that anymore. Also, people will look back and be like "You know what, bush wasn't that bad. He had alot of questionable things about him but he kept the country in one piece under unquestionablely tough times".

unquestionabley tough times that he himself helped create, and it wasn't bush himself that helped keep the country together. he doesn't do much of anything, we have to look to the senate and congress for these things too.

oh, and just because there are less people doesn't mean that there will be less smart people. the ratio would be the same. also, we have rampant unemployment in this country and less people means less unemployed which means lower taxes for those who are employed because we wouldn't need to pay so much money into the national welfare system.
The ratio is the same but mathmatically theres less. Thats just common sence. Less people also equals less people to take chances and open small businesses, buy products and boost the economy through work, buying houses, etc. Need willing people to keep the economy going.

There will always be enough people for these things to happen. There was 291,531,091 people in the U.S. in 2006 and 91,091,199 of them were in poverty. thats almost a third of the country. If you are in poverty, its not likely that you would have the money to start up a business or to buy things that would stimulate the economy.

Having less people would allow the odds of running a successful business to go up. There would be less competition. Not only from other businesses, but from the individuals who are competeting for business grants or loans from a bank.

And as far as there being less "smart" people, schools would not be overcrowded, teachers could spend more time with individual students who have potential(which most people have. a human's capacity for knowledge is astounding. the problem lies with not using that potential). More people would be able to afford college. There would probably be more smart people. Even if there are less, it would still be beneficial. With less geniuses, scientists and the like would be forced to actually come up with cures for disease that would be wiping out an already small population instead of creating makeup that changes from person to person based on their skin tone.

I'm not saying our country would be better off if there was only one million people, but if we could lose just a third of the population, there would be more to go around for everybody.
 
Back
Top