[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

Yup. it's amazing how conservative liberals can become on certain issues and vice versa. That's why someone like Ron Paul would be much better than Obama on the social issues that liberals really care about (marijuana, gay marriage, etc). The government really shouldn't be involved in who gets married, period, any any kind of union should qualify for partner benefits.

I would love someone like Ron Paul to get a shot. I really wish the other parties would become more viable. This two party system really stinks, IMO. I honestly think they are actually working together behind the scenes to keep status quo, but put on a false front in many ways. I'm not saying there are no differences, but the most important thing to a politician is to get re-elected and I think this is one big piece of crap they are feeding us. Between Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, Mcconnell and the rest of the bums, they keep everything the way they really want it to be, so their peeps keep getting re-elected. They make disingenuous arguments against each other. I don't trust one of them or their buddies as far as I can through them.

[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by FloridaPirate355

I support Civil Unions and want them to offer the same benefits of marriage. But oppose calling such a relationship "marriage" as it's obviously not the same, nor is it how the term is defined in the first place.

A gay person simply wants to marry their partner, just like a straight person wants to marry their partner. To deny them that right is to deny them their civil rights, IMO. This whole "marriage is between a man and a woman" argument is BS. Who is really to say what is what? The easiest way to fix this argument is for the government to NOT recognize ANY marriage at all and simply recognize legal unions, whether it be gay or straight. "Marriage" can then simply be something within the church or any other organization, but they would all be the same as far as the government would be concerned.

[artisan4]

I just came back from FL and the poverty I saw was unbelievable. I'm assuming Nan Rich or Charlie Crist will accept the expansion of Medicare, I hope so. This state could really use a progressive income tax as well. Very strange to see this poverty in the United States still, but that's what voting Republican gets you.

[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by artisan4

I just came back from FL and the poverty I saw was unbelievable. I'm assuming Nan Rich or Charlie Crist will accept the expansion of Medicare, I hope so. This state could really use a progressive income tax as well. Very strange to see this poverty in the United States still, but that's what voting Republican gets you.

Partisan BS. Have you seen sone of the poverty in democrat controlled states?

One could easily claim "that's what voting democrat gets you". People need to stop with the idiotic partisan crap. The economy is not a matter of voting democrat or republican.

Florida has areas of poverty, areas of wealth and areas of middle class, just like all states.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by PriusH8r

I don't believe in party agenda. It's all phony. Made up crap. Unfortunately for most candidates to win they are forced to choose a party....either D or R. I don't for a minute feel they all believe the party platform 100%. I vote based on what the needs are at the time and who has the skillset and/or record to deal the with issues at hand. I vote based on the "individual" and their proven past history, not their political rhetoric, although negative tones turn me off.

Even though I cannot vote in Tampa, I really like the mayor of Tampa, who happens to be a democrat. I don't believe in the democrat platform (nor the republicans), but the mayor has shown real vision and has made many more quality decisions than he has bad ones. I disagree with him on some things, but agree with others.

I often vote alternate parties when no one worth a vote is available in either major party. I have voted for more democrat presidential candidates than I have republican, but I have voted for more republican down ballot candidates than I have democrats.

I would love to vote for Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan again, but neither can run........obviously. Going forward, I do not see any good qualified candidates on the horizon, even though I believe Hillary will easily win because people mistakenly think Hillary is the same as Bill.

You have to believe in something. Even Independents lean.I have split ballots many times in the past but the votes went to moderates. People whom I thought would maybe honor their convictions rather than the party bosses. Republicans who would now be refered to as rinos and blue dog Democrats. I have never voted for an alternative candidate, and would only consider a truly exceptional individual. I'm not holding my breath.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by chopchop0

Yup. it's amazing how conservative liberals can become on certain issues and vice versa. That's why someone like Ron Paul would be much better than Obama on the social issues that liberals really care about (marijuana, gay marriage, etc). The government really shouldn't be involved in who gets married, period, any any kind of union should qualify for partner benefits.

Although Libertarianism is appealing, their denizens invariably seem to veer off the rails. Shame.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by FloridaPirate355

I fail to see how gay marriage is a Civil Rights issue. Gay people already have all the same rights as everyone else, they go to the same schools, work the same jobs, live in the same neighborhoods, can even work in political offices. These are things that black people and other minorities could not do, those were REAL Civil Rights issues. Gay marriage isn't even in the same vein. The only thing they can't do is do something that a term doesn't allow in the first place, marriage has always been defined as between man and woman.

Furthermore, "marriage equality" is a joke term. Do you guys also support polygamist and incest marriages as well? There are small groups of people who do those things, and there are groups that would support such a thing such as Mormons and Muslims with Polygamy. Is it a "Civil Rights Issue" for those groups as well? After all if you want to redefine marriage to be whoever a person loves then you are opening the door for those other groups too, who would argue that you are discriminating against them and their lifestyle by not allowing them to be married. Clearly using your train of thought it would be.

I support Civil Unions and want them to offer the same benefits of marriage. But oppose calling such a relationship "marriage" as it's obviously not the same, nor is it how the term is defined in the first place.

Openly gay people have been discriminated against in employment, education, military service,social groups, fraternal groups, religious groups, youth groups, etc., etc. So I guess it could be referred as a "Civil Rights" issue. I do know that they are highly motivated, organized, and tireless. Their rapid advancement is testament. I say they deserve the rewards of their work. BTW some are also minorities...

[CountryFisher]

Originally Posted by HarryWho?

Openly gay people have been discriminated against in employment, education, military service,social groups, fraternal groups, religious groups, youth groups, etc., etc. So I guess it could be referred as a "Civil Rights" issue. I do know that they are highly motivated, organized, and tireless. Their rapid advancement is testament. I say they deserve the rewards of their work. BTW some are also minorities...

Gay guys can marry women and lesbians can marry men.

In conclusion, homos pretend that they are suffering for attention and money.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by CountryFisher

Gay guys can marry women and lesbians can marry men.

In conclusion, homos pretend that they are suffering for attention and money.

Ahhh. OK. You demand my respect . I admire those with simple conclusions for complex problems. Anything new at the Flat Earth Society?

[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by HarryWho?

You have to believe in something. Even Independents lean.I have split ballots many times in the past but the votes went to moderates. People whom I thought would maybe honor their convictions rather than the party bosses. Republicans who would now be refered to as rinos and blue dog Democrats. I have never voted for an alternative candidate, and would only consider a truly exceptional individual. I'm not holding my breath.

I believe in a lot of things, just not in political candidates or especially their party.

I believe in a flag tax with the same $X exemption for everyone or a national sales tax in place of an income tax.

Anti-war

Pro FULL gay rights and marriage

Limited Federal controls......this does not mean no Federal controls

More local to state government controls instead

One term congressional and presidential limits

Congress voting on ONE item at a time....no more bundling and payoffs

A reasonable discussion and compromise on abortion, so we can do the right thing for mother and unborn baby and put this issue behind us

Pro pot legalization

Pro prostitution legalization

Others, but don't want to type anymore.