Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Dave]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

Nevermind. I'm voting for him (again), simply and purely because, idiot or no, he is the only candidate in this mess who has stood up and unequivocally stated (the possibly very unpopular belief) that denial of the right of gays to marry is unacceptable discrimination and that all citizens should have equal access to fundamental social and legal institutions and protection for their basic human rights and human dignity. What a novel and radical fucking idea.

Am I the only one who sees the "So where does he stand on polygamy" post coming?

ETA: Nader is on my short list of people I wouldn't vote for even if hell froze over, notwithstanding that he espouses a position or two that I agree with.

[sgtclub]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040222/D80SFKJ00.html

Haven't decided yet what these means for the Clinton foreign policy team . . .

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

OK, I admit it, if the Libertarian candidate overtly and publicly espouses equal protection and equal rights for gays I may vote for him/her instead.

Maybe, but not in a way you'd like. My guess is that you could find libertarians that see marriage as a political subsidy that can't be justified, and they'd rather eliminate it entirely than expand the franchise.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Dave
Am I the only one who sees the "So where does he stand on polygamy" post coming?

No. So where does he stand on polygamy?

I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business. It discriminates against single people and the only legitimate basis for that discrimination was that a one man/one woman union promoted survival of the species and had historically been the rock upon which civilization was founded. If those aren't considered legitimate reasons to limit it to one man/one woman, then disallowing any type of union is discrimination.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
No. So where does he stand on polygamy?

I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business. It discriminates against single people and the only legitimate basis for that discrimination was that a one man/one woman union promoted survival of the species and had historically been the rock upon which civilization was founded. If those aren't considered legitimate reasons to limit it to one man/one woman, then disallowing any type of union is discrimination.

I'm not exactly the poster boy for marriage, but don't you think the government has a legitimate interest in incentivizing people to marry?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not exactly the poster boy for marriage, but don't you think the government has a legitimate interest in incentivizing people to marry?

If they're going to breed . . .

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It's easy for one to sound principled when there is absolutely no chance of winning the election. You just have to appeal to an electorate of one. Whatever you may do or say, your outcome is the same.

I've posted about wanting Nader in, but really how many states would have gone otherwise in 2000w/o him?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If they're going to breed . . .

isn't a lot of your practice about people wanting to preserve wealth for future generations? When people are breeding, in a way, its marketing for you. sort of, isn't it?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I've posted about wanting Nader in, but really how many states would have gone otherwise in 2000w/o him?

Florida and NH. Enough where Gore would have won.

[edited for wrong word]

[sgtclub]

Will one of the leftist contingent please tell me how questioning Kerry's voting record on matters of national security is an out of bounds critism of his war record/patriotism? I just don't get this latest crap that he's been spewing. Is he insulated from all national security questions because he served in VN?

[sgtclub]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/768rwsbj.asp

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
isn't a lot of your practice about people wanting to preserve wealth for future generations? When people are breeding, in a way, its marketing for you. sort of, isn't it?

I work for large employers, not small business people, and firmly believe that retirement money is for retirement, not for fucking estate planning. So, no. My practice is about attracting and retaining employees. Some of the executive comp stuff I guess is about the wealth preservation, but really I think it's more about proving who's got the biggest penis and not really estate planning. Stupid.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/768rwsbj.asp

Well, that article makes a case for there being ties between al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam, but I haven't seen the proof of ties between Ansar and al Qaeda besides the self-interested declarations of Kurdish leadership who want our help in keeping Ansar under control. For instance, I'm not sure I'm going to take the word of the author of that article because he's now hawking a forthcoming book called "Al Qaeda's Affiliates: the Next Generation of Terror." If there weren't so many affiliates, there wouldn't be much demand for the book, I would think.

But it's quite possible that my information is not complete. Even then, I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind focusing our military might and diplomatic muscle behind deposing a leader with arguably tenuous ties to al Qaeda while the leader of al Qaeda and the mastermind of 9/11 remains at large.

And get your minds out of the gutter with my use of "deposing," this is not the FB.

Of course, the earlier article you cited may be correct and we've already got OBL surrounded, in which case I say "huzzah" through the egg on my face. Incidentally, when I googled "Osama surrounded" this was the first non-blog site I came up with:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/gen...gainst.terror/

[edited to fix link]

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not exactly the poster boy for marriage, but don't you think the government has a legitimate interest in incentivizing people to marry?

Please explain what the legitimate reasons are if you include same sex marriage as your definition of marriage. And also explain why that legitimate reason cannot also be used to support plural marriage.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It means that most folks don't view democracy as the proper or most important "end" in itself, because political freedom for people with worldviews than our own may well produce policies and actions that we don't like.

When we're dealing with nuclear proliferation, stability and cooperation are the key. As you know, it is a common assumption that democratic governments built on the rule of law with good social institutions are more stable and less likely to engage in wars, etc. That may be true -- but most emerging democracies are weak on the latter two. Remember -- the U.S. fought about 10 wars of various sizes in its first 80 years (including the Civil War) -- most of which we started.

Its hard to say what will emerge from a democratic Islamic country -- we've never seen one. (Malaysia/Indonesia are barely democracies and not strictly Islamic).

S_A_M

I find your description of the instability of emerging democracies interesting, in light of the fact that we've fought 6 pretty big wars in the last 90 years. But I see your larger point, that democracy isn't a panacea.

But on another level, this is one of the few tenets of our foreign policy I agree with: the political systems that foster the disaffected Arab jihad culture are the same ones who would be threatened by a democracy. Maybe true democracy won't result in pliant regimes like the House of Saud, but I for one am willing to take the 15 Saudis in the 9/11 attacks as an indicator that we need to go another way.

I believe our domino theory rhetoric with respect to Iraq is rather empty if we just turn around and make a deal with a conservative theocratic regime that just slapped democracy in the face. Doesn't that then give every other dictatorship the incentive to at least act like they have some nukes so that we will give them free reign to deal with/oppress their opposition? Why wouldn't our making of this deal be appeasement?

Btw, the Iranians have wasted no time in saying that US recognition of the newly "elected" government must precede any talks:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...323EST0624.DTL
At the same time, they're also making nebulous statements about having acquired nuclear "equipment" from some "dealers on the subcontinent":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...009EST0463.DTL
It's quite a little dance.

Jeez, I'm gabby tonight. I think I had too much wine at dinner, or else I'm just subconsciously trying to pass the time while my wife watches the Sex and the City hoopla in the living room...