VOTE DEMOCRAT

END THIS IN NOVEMBER
YOU HAVE THE POWER
THAT IS ALL

>>1
Don't make compromises and vote libertarians. They actually care for your rights.

>>2 But most of your candidates are insane!

Why arent there more options?

VOTE JEWISH OR VOTE JEWISH

You have all the power

>>3
Wow, that's a compelling argument.

Compelling because it shows how stupid and foolish democrats are, enjoy your lack of 1 vote!

>>1
If I vote for anyone in november, it'll be the libertarians or republicans.  You democrats suck.

>>1
Yeah! Lets give those dems the power to shit all over the constitution even MORE! LoL!

bye bye bye to the 2nd amendment if dems take hold of the government.

>>2
True.  Though I'd prefer the republicans to the democrats, given the choice... support IRV so we all have more accurate representation...:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRV
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=19

>>8
And hellooo open borders and pro-UN, pro big-government ideology.
Bye bye national sovereignty. 

>>10  Don't forget helloo welfare state!

Why vote for the lesser of two evils? Vote for the one who isn't evil, for god's sake. 

Vote libertarian!

Please, whatever you, DON'T VOTE DEMOCRAT, MUCH LESS REPUBLICAN EITHER.

At least republicans stand for the constitution, minorities, and usually abide by the law.

Democrats just sell out to whomever bends over and wants to get gay, butt screwed.  If you have any lack of sense, want big brother to baby you, the democrats/liberals, will take you in and care for you.

VOTE INDEPENDENT or another party, but not the two powerhouses, to really make a differnce.

God Bless

Amen, #12

We will see just how smart and sheepish,  the america people are in the next elections.  I myself just recently switched to Independent, after 20+ years of Republicism and military.

Liberatarian isn't my choice, but it would be before the Dems and repubs.

Put it to you this way, who is for closed borders during this invasion and war with Mexico, is the ones that I will seek to support.

>>3
Better than republicans or democrats. Atleast they will support your constitutional rights and that's prettymuch all that matters to me.

>>15 The Pentagon just listed homosexuality as a sort of disorder, so circa 10 % or more of the US just got their constitutional rights pissed on due to a surrender to the less progressive faction of christians. Yay for the opportunisticc right!

I don't know about you guys, but I'm voting for the neo-cons, then I'm getting some popcorn and watch the world burn. Fuck hollywood, when we can just bomb some muslim country and show it on tv!

>>16
Yeah? Are you implying that it's libertarians fault? What does it matter anyway if it's listed as disorder? It was listed as mental disorder in old times and note that such things as transvestism and fetish are still listed as mental illnesses. Words in papers don't matter much. When they start putting gays on jail or doing something like that then it's time to act.

>>18 Words ON papers are reflective of the underlying motivation and objectivity of the approving organization. They're not going to put gays in jail at a given date. Ever heard of the "boiling frogs" analogy? That's it. That is what I'm talking about, it's akin to the all-front incremental assault on women's rights conducted during the Reagan years. Also, fetishisms and transvetism are no more unnatural than what type of music you prefer; it is a cosmetic preference you accumulate by accident. The incapacity of the family value-oriented to feel beyond the knee-jerk reaction of "EW I've never seen that before let's marginalize and silence it" is damning.

VOTE NSM!!!

www.nukeisrael.com

>>19
Reason behind why homosexuality aka homophilia was officially(and still is unofficially) considered to be mental illness is psychology. Christians consider it sin, but it's psychology which made it illness, so we should get rid sexual abnormalities classification and bigots would lose their main weapon. Then they couldn't really say that their opnions are fact.

>>21 Psychology itself fidn't make it a sickness, the term is a facade for idiots. Since so many bigots are fueled by the bible, they don't operate in a reasonable world; they have introduced an abstract dimension not sensitive to facts. They will select some other pseudo-scientifical argument to continue their sick crusade.
   But there is hope; recently the dems fianlly did something good by spoiling Bush's pathetic attempt to make 10 % and more of american love unconstituional. Too bad, concerned parents and undereducated christians, I guess your crusader has blown it all. Fuck you.
    We must ostracize and speak up against ALL kinds of anti-gay sentiments if we want change, and not hold back just because they hide behind a religion or their race or whatever. Psychology isn't the most important factor.

>>21
       Homosexuality was considered a disease because almost every sexual kink that involved anything but the missionary position was considered a psychological disease.  A disease is considered harmful; where as a disorder, as it is now, is simply different.  It was made that way from changes in the concepts of pschology, and because the term "disease" implies "needs to be cured" and "can be cured" which isn't true with psychological diseases.
        Sexual abnormalities have been in no way proven to harm society.  Hell, even pedophilia lacks evidence of causing harm to society.  This is because of lack of sufficient cross referencing comparing of other environments, and the fact that being something that causes you to be austricised the the rest of socity can be more harmful to you that just being that in the first place.  Also, researh is extreemly biased for finding harm.  For instance before you can tell if a homosexual is truely harmed by his/her homosexuality, you must first make sure he/she knows that he is a dirty, sick, freak and that a homosexual is a horrible thing to be.  This will cause more harm to him/her than being a homosexual in the first place.

>>22
        Homosexuality is still seen as a mental disorder by those that practice psychology.  A disorder just means that your mind works a little different from how a human mind naturally functions, and is in no way a danger to society like a disease is.  And homosexuality is a disorder and an unnatural functioning of the brain.  Most sexual fetishes were moved to this area and I believe that even pedophilia is considered a disorder today, not a disease.  All a fetish is is a sexual kick that doesn't have to do with breeding for the most part(not the actual definition here).  focus on other non-sexual areas of the body, anal fixations, oral fixations, beastiality, necrophilia, parential inprinting, pedophilia, sadism, masochism, and homosexuality are all considered sexual disorders.  A disorder isn't really good or bad but just a deviation from the normal psychological behavior.

>>23 Anti-gay sentimets harms society by being an unnecessary divider not to mention a distraction from real issues. The harm it does to the gay community is unquantifiable since it is spread over 10 % or more of the american population.
A disorder is semantically a poor term, and if homosexuality is a disorder then so is my preference for symmetrical patterns and the color black. Research is research, facts are facts, the problem is less in the researchers than in the omittance and selection of facts people make.
Homosexuality is NOT "unnatural". In nature, the LEAST common relationship is heterosexual monogamy. Dolphin males commonly have sex with each other and have been observed sodomizing tortoise males as well. Unnatural is a very poor choice of words, you know. A disorder it MAY be, but in that case it is a NURTURED exaggeration of a NATURALLY existing potential for non-heterosexuality.
Homosexuality is not a "kink", nor is it a lifestyle. It is either native or empirical, but mostly native. It does appear as if lesbianism has a more complex causality than male homosexuality though. It may also be an expression of preference for a particular type of PERSON, since centrally males and females are born very much alike, but are then raised to be boys and girls, later becomin men and women. A person may simply not fancy the way we have molded and shaped males and females, and thus go the path less travelled.

>>24
Everything that humans do is natural. Humans are animals and are thus technically incapable of acting unnaturally.

BTW, if you think homosexuality is birth "defect" how do you explain ancient times esp. Ancient Greece where homosexuality and pederasty was encouraged? In my opnion it has more to do with nurture.

I believe honestly we should abandon psychology as science. It does more harm than good. What's considered normal changes greatly from culture to culture. That doesn't mean psychology would be banned or anything. It just wouldn't be regognized as science. There would still ofcourse be psychologist for those wanting help and mental hospital to put insane criminals in.

>>25 You used the word unnatural, I didn't. I don't think homosexuality is a birth "defect", I consider it a mostly native birth EFFECT.
Psychology is a science that has produced efficient bases for many institutions that demand understanding of the elementary factors of the human mind. Also, facts are facts and they automatically cross cultural borders; psychologists are very much devoted to comparing results in different cultures.

>>26
Yet for same trange reason you didn't explain Ancient Greece.

>>25
I'd like to start off by noting a misconception about my opinion of culture. Other cultures are not inferior, one culture may be absolutely evil, but cook well, this doesn't mean their food must also be inferior which would be absurd, thus no culture is inferior.

I believe that cultures are a collection of ideas and customs and that some of these ideas are more important than whether you enjoy sticking your penis in another guy's rectum or not and that such ideas cannot be accepted. I agree that tolerance is good for diplomatic purposes, because it is outside the culture you have enterred. However if important ideas conflict with your important ideas you should not have to tolerate them. For instance, the belief that husbands should be able to beat their wives is an important belief shared by some and if it conflicts with my important belief that violence is unnacceptable I will not be tolerant of it if it occurs in my country, but I will tolerate it if it occurs in the country which practices that culture. However if the same people of that culture believe that they should wear bright clothes and I find some of those clothes slightly annoying, I will be tolerant, since it is an unimportant part of their culture and doesn't matter wherever it is practised.

As a result of this rational understanding of culture, I would say that only the libertarians have the correct view of how laws should proceed. For instance they register marriage as a legal contract and that in theory anyone should be able to simply make a contract and call it a marriage contract if they want and that there should be no special laws concerning it.

Marriage, gay marriage or not, is an unimportant part of culture, it lives within the realm of liberty, thus treating itt as though it is in the realm of justice is an infringement of liberty and as a result an infringement of justice.

Legal contracts however live within the realm of justice, we live every day with contracts which state that property and legal tender belongs to us, thus infringements of legal contracts abuse both liberty and justice.

As a result any laws concerning marriage are null, but people should be free to make legal contracts and call it a marriage contract. Legally it has nothing to do with marriage and is merely a representation of marriage in legal terminology. A robot would scan it and say, these 2 people want to make an unusual contract, fair enough, no problem there *stamp*.

Democrats and republicans are too scared to question things in such detail as their reasonning skills are affected by emotional considerations and various action groups with something up their jaxies.

No for some strange reason I didn't explain myself. Probably due to some strange reason. Okay, I will ameliorate that. It is so that many humans are innately bisexual/homosexual. Depending on culture this latent capability for non-heterosexuality is oppressed/encouraged to a degree while its nature also varies depending on nurture. Again: Naturally occuring potency for non-heterosexuality subjected to either oppressive or liberating Nurture. Ancient Greece simply approved of buttsex and sapphic relations, and I do to even though I'm undecided about my sexuality. I thank my atheist parents and secular society for that

>>29
How can you be sure that all humans aren't bisexual/pan-sexual by birth?

>>30 I couldn't, so I went for the moderate option. I guess we need to identify biochemical sexual designators and then look for them in infants.

>>28 BTW, this claim that homosexuality is adisorde has been rejected by mental health specialists decades ago. Boiling frogs, boiling forgs, boiling frogs...

>>24
          Homosexuality is UNNATURAL.  having sex with another member of the same sex isn't unnatural in some species, and not in humanity either, just sex.  It is used to release stress tension in societys and individuals in many cases human and animal alike.  Sex happens on many levels in the animal kingdom including homosexuality, and i guess what would be called pedophilia, but these aren't constants.  However, how often do you find a dolfin that only does male dolfins.  How often do you find a monkey that only does male monkeys.  It doesn't happen because true homosexuality isn't natural.  TRUE HOMOSEXUALITY isn't about sex, it is about an entire lifestlye dedicated to copulation with the same sex.  Homosexuality is when sombody is attracted to only the same sex.  Heterosexuality is when you are attracted to only the opposite sex.  Homosexuality is when sombody is only going to have sex with the same sex, and that is an unnatural mental state.  I am not trying to condem it for anything as it is harmless and their own preference.  That doesn't make it natural.

>>32
What does that have to do with the irrefutable facts I posted. I pretty much cleared up this entire argument. Does this have something to do with the communist manifesto forced up your ass again? For the last fucking time, americans don't want to live under tyranny!

Homosexuality is an unimportant idea and lies within the realms of liberty, no laws should be made to bother with it. The only law needed to uphold is the one which says that citizens have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Screw with this law and it won't be long until a piece of 7.62*51 mm piece of lead travels through your cranium at the speed of sound.

>>34
Thank god for the 2nd amendment.

and for the soon to come gay marriage ban amendment

>>33 All right all right, I guess a point is being made, but I still don't consider it a lifestyle by all definitions. As long as you are ready to harm and ridicule all actions that are anti-gay, you can feel any which way.
>>34 I've never read that manifesto and I never will, it's just that american liberties are being marginalized and to a high degree it's extreme christians' fault.

god, you people cannot be this fucking stupid.  another american poltics thread, the same faggotridden black-white thinking and catchphrases.  BIG GOV/LITTLE GOV WELFARE STATE/PRIVATE HEALTHCARE LOTS OF SPICS/NO SPICS.

i want you all to vote for a party that would institute compulsory voting.

>>38 You have a point there; I too prefer nuanced and fact-sensitive discussions. You lose tons of credibility for using the word "faggot" as if it is a necessary word. It never is, except for comedic purposes.
>>38

>>39

oh well.  one hundred tons of credibility minus several leaves me a balance of ninety.

do you think you guys will ever go isolationist again, or will it take another world war?