All Forums | Politics

How Romney could stop the Obama love wagon

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 1871
Posts: 58
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #26

GOP is just not the most "aware" or "reasonable" group out there.

 

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #27
You can start as many brain diarrhea threads you want shrimp, 
Dont Hijack mine. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #28
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:


Wrote this on Facebook earlier, in response to a religion hater who has been taking the recent gay news to Tee off on Christians. 

I do not like the Govt. telling me who or what I can marry. Isn't the idea to get the govt out of marriage all together? End tax benefits for married people, etc. The govt should not be in charge of a religious sacrament (from the religious standpoint), nor decide who can and can't get married (from a secular standpoint). Religious people arguing for the govt. to ban same sex marriage are in effect arguing for the govt to dictate the legal tenants of their religion. gays begging the govt for permission to marry are vindicating the government and their authority over the civil rights of gays. It is a sick cluster-F of a conundrum. Let's re-direct and take away the federal and state monopoly on matrimony and call it a day. That way I can go back to being a flat earth deity dummy, and atheists can go back to whatever it is atheists do when they are not calling me a moron.


i like what you wrote other than the fact that its fantasy.  the government is entrenched in this and so much else.  they get in but they never get out.  until something changes (i'm not holding my breath) we have to deal with the reality and the equalities and inequalities within the system.

and for the record, my criticisms are never with the idea of God, just with religion and certain people's self-serving interpretations. 
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #29
The only way to fix everything , is to come to similar realizations and realize that piecemeal liberty will not work Freedom is absolute. 

 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2003
Posts: 32362
Posted: #30

I believe there is still a pending question...

Why in the world isn't Romney putting a stop to the Obama love wagon?" 

It is a losing proposition for the Romney campaign to even broach this subject.  He is about to lose his home State of Massachusetts.  Do you disagree?  If he has any chance at all to win in November, he needs to pick his fights.  This is not one he can win and his campaign is correct in not fighting this battle. 

Can you tell me who was the last candidate to win the Presidency of the United States without winning his home State?


~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2010
Posts: 2098
Posted: #31
Obama.... I don't think Kenya got to vote!
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2001
Posts: 5561
Posted: #32

My stance on gay marriage... If we are a country where all are created equal, then we must allow gays to marry, under the law. Let them go to Vegas, or a Justice of the peace and marry. However, it is a seperate law from the church and it has the right not to marry them.

Personally, I believe that it is wrong in God's eyes, and against his Word. It clearly states in the bible that .." Man shall not lie down with man, and woman shall not lie down with woman.".  And Sodom and Gomorrah.. Lot took his wife and two virgin daughters and left.  God said that he would not destroy the city if he could find only 10 righteous people ! He could not.

Jesus confirmed this in the new testament, Luke: 17:32 when he said, " Remember Lot's wife ?

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #33
The point is that the Federal and state govt. do not have the right to preside over any marriage, gay or other.  Ceding that power to them seemed like a good idea at the time, but it looks as though they even fucked that up.  

The only logical step is to completely stop government interference in marriage.  Sure, it may lead to people marrying their Dog, but who really cares.  If they can find a church to wed them, more power to them, since there will be no tax incentive there should be no problem. 

The only issue I would have is if there were discrimination suits against churches that would not marry gays. 

Churches should have the autonomy to deny anyone for any reason.  Not very Christian of them, but they should have that right. 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2002
Posts: 67006
Posted: #34
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

The point is that the Federal and state govt. do not have the right to preside over any marriage, gay or other.  Ceding that power to them seemed like a good idea at the time, but it looks as though they even fucked that up.  

The only logical step is to completely stop government interference in marriage.  Sure, it may lead to people marrying their Dog, but who really cares.  If they can find a church to wed them, more power to them, since there will be no tax incentive there should be no problem. 

The only issue I would have is if there were discrimination suits against churches that would not marry gays. 

Churches should have the autonomy to deny anyone for any reason.  Not very Christian of them, but they should have that right. 


So if marriage is not recognized by the law, then how does society settle issues relating to property between couples and things relating to children, like custody, etc.  Doesn't there need to be a set of rules?  Just use common law rules of contracts?
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2002
Posts: 67006
Posted: #35
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:



So if marriage is not recognized by the law, then how does society settle issues relating to property between couples and things relating to children, like custody, etc.  Doesn't there need to be a set of rules?  Just use common law rules of contracts?


To follow up on this, having marriage and the sets of rules and precedent that attaches is very helpful to dealing with these domestic property and child issues.  And to follow on that, there appears to me no logical reason why it would not be helpful to have this apply to those gay couples who choose to enter into the same system.

The people against it are almost increasingly and almost uniformly people who think homosexuals are deviant or immoral.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #36
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:



So if marriage is not recognized by the law, then how does society settle issues relating to property between couples and things relating to children, like custody, etc.  Doesn't there need to be a set of rules?  Just use common law rules of contracts?

Nope. How about letting people deal with their own shit.  


 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #37
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:


Nope. How about letting people deal with their own shit.  


Depeche just said that.

Common Contract Law = letting people deal with their own shit.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #38

Interesting debate.............. lot of contracts require "escrows".............. maybe incorporate that into Marriage contracts?

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #39
Quote Originally Posted by FriedShrimp:

Depeche just said that.

Common Contract Law = letting people deal with their own shit.


Fair enough.  Makes sense.  


 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #40

There is no perfect contract....... and lot of variables involved with child custody but the outcome is always the same...... Arbitration or a Judge.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #41
If the NFL can get along using contract law..... you'd think married couples could.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #42

Escrows, appraisals, draws, vestings, body weight weigh ins, etc...... sure, why not?

"Honey, it's time for your quarterly weigh in.  Does 2:00 work?"

 

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #43
this isn't making sense to me.  before two people have sex, they are supposed to iron out a contract covering all the different variables that are critical when you have a child?
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #44

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

this isn't making sense to me.  before two people have sex, they are supposed to iron out a contract covering all the different variables that are critical when you have a child?

Sure......... just post a generic contract template on line.

Page 1 says......... "who is going to get the kids to school on time?"

 

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 20685
Posted: #45

Have like a "touch screen" auto contract on internet terminals.

At a bar and say........... "You are smoking hot and look like a nice person, let's initiate the paperwork just in case"

Electronic signatures and no paperwork.

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2002
Posts: 67006
Posted: #46
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:


Nope. How about letting people deal with their own shit.  




Legal self-help?  Just take the kid with you and tell the other parent to go to hell?  No need for courts?

Americans take our disputes to the justice system.  Kind of a tradition here.  I'm not sure what country you're familiar with.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #47
I just don't get where marriage plays into that, we are delving into an entirely different issue.  

I believe we are too litigious as a country.  
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #48
rick, the laws are for the kids

why do you GOP'ers hate the kids?,,,,,,
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #49
Quote Originally Posted by don juan:

My stance on gay marriage... If we are a country where all are created equal, then we must allow gays to marry, under the law. Let them go to Vegas, or a Justice of the peace and marry. However, it is a seperate law from the church and it has the right not to marry them.

Personally, I believe that it is wrong in God's eyes, and against his Word. It clearly states in the bible that .." Man shall not lie down with man, and woman shall not lie down with woman.".  And Sodom and Gomorrah.. Lot took his wife and two virgin daughters and left.  God said that he would not destroy the city if he could find only 10 righteous people ! He could not.

Jesus confirmed this in the new testament, Luke: 17:32 when he said, " Remember Lot's wife ?

The bible has been changed 500+ times.

The bible was written 400 years after yeshua’s death and was heavily edited by a group of men with an agenda, who had never met yeshua.

It was written in Unicode character and numbers and letters are almost one in the same in Hebrew. So, it could be one giant numerical code.

Jesus can’t be his first name because there is no letter J in Hebrew, Greek or Latin Aramaic.

If Jesus Christ was a person, who was Mithra, Krishna? (Look’em up)

Who was the first to be baptized, crucified, resurrected, betrayed and made into a martyr for someone else's redemption?

Who were Odysseus, Romulus, Dionysus, Heracles, Glycon, Zoroaster/Zarathustra, and Attis of Phrygia?

These are examples of Gods that came before Jesus with similar stories.

Any god that creates plagues, sacrifices people, hates gays, preaches hate, preaches fear, preaches torture, preaches burning people alive, preaches abuse, preaches death destruction and armageddon. I don’t want to be apart of.

Democrats, republicans, christians, person, and muslims don’t know anything about what they associate themselves with. You sheep blindly except things without question.

 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2004
Posts: 38704
Posted: #50
Think about it, folks. There were hard core lefties (and still are) that were and are PISSED at Obama for not being hard core enough on some things.  You know what, where are they going to go?  Vote for McCain or now Romney?  

What Romney needs to do (and he won't) is (in not so many words, but by his action) tell the 5-10% hard core righties that he doesn't give a crap about gay marriage....or stem cell research....etc.
The game has ALWAYS been won in the middle.  Why not just admit it and move on?  This will be Romney's downfall....guarantee it.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a candidate say, "you know what, I care more about the majority of the people in this country....not the 10-20% of the hard core rights and left.  You're in a minority and if you want to find a candidate to represent your views, then so be it.  We have energy issues....we have economic issues.....we have foreign affairs issues.  I'm tired of catering to the minority at the expense of handling the issues facing the majority."  
All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.