Campaign Advertising
Heather White
Negative advertising is essential to Democracy. Often we see politicians who avoid the issues, and use their rhetoric to their advantage. With the corruption today in American politics, most running for office would probably wish to keep their discretions in the past. Negative advertising provides facts that candidates themselves twist and alter to hide. Legislation that has hurt America isn’t something that they want out in the open on the campaign trial. So, negative advertising can entice voters to dig deeper for information that might be faded in the background during election time. While we wish we could, politicians can’t be trusted to provide every mistake they have made. Politicians are slow to admit when they have do something wrong, and if they could they will spin it to understate it as much as they can. This rigorous competition needs these ads to provide the substance and facts for voters.

Chaptman agreed that these negative ads are healthy to American Democracy. He noted that these ads go under harsh scrutiny and as such, their facts must be correct. Negative ads that lie can and will be exposed, and that NEVER looks good for a candidate. And as these ads appear more and more on the web and television, the candidates have to maintain their integrity in this form of sparing and to stick to the facts. If not it will reflect poorly on their image and will destroy their campaign. Something to be noted is that each ad that portrays a candidate negatively is stamped with approval from the other side’s candidate, making them liable for everything in these messages.

However, it is important to understand moderation. While these ads are helpful, they should be taken as what they are—trash talk from the other side of the political spectrum. As such, these facts must be researched and given a legitimate source rather than just these commercials. Whether or not you chose to accept it, this is propaganda (the organized promotion of information to assist or damage the cause of a government or movement). It should always be limited. If all the advertising we ever saw was negative advertising, neither candidate would have a chance to explain themselves. Also we need to understand that these ads manifest misconceptions because they utilize dysphemisms.

John Geer, Vanderbilt University political scientist, wrote in his book “The Defense of Negativity” uses statistics to prove that “any effort to lessen negative advertising will lessen the quality of information available to the public”. He is right. No matter how much we wish, not every American will watch the debates for each campaign. And without these ads, all America would be exposed to is the candidates’ families, accomplishments and hopeful platforms. But, we need more than that. We need to be able to see mistakes and how a candidate dealt with them. Often these ads, like those featured on the livingroomcandidate.org mirror the topics discussed in the debates. For example, yesterday’s vice presidential debate Sarah Palin was careful to prove that McCain is not like Bush in his voting patterns however, Obama’s ad reveals the nominee stating in 2003 that he was proud that he voted that often (over 90%) with Bush. At the same time, Biden used the information on the $4 billion dollar tax break for oil companies (also included in a negative ad) as evidence of McCain’s failure in the energy crisis. Although these must be taken into context (was the purpose of the legislation, dates these statements were made), it provides a step towards reaching for more than just rhetoric from candidates. It forces them to address these misconceptions and if they don’t Americans will be able to take into consideration that whatever that negative ad proved, had no response.

As long as these ads are in moderation and truthful, these are effective for the candidates, but the second that a politician lies to America through one of these ads, the scrutiny will be unmanageable. America will see their abuse of out trust before they even enter office.

Tae-Yong Kwon
When two MMA(Mixed Martial Arts: think Boxing+Judo+etc made into a sport) fighters enter the ring, they are cheered by their supporters. Though some of these fighters do talk 'trash' on their opponents, most talk favorably about their opponents and how they'll have difficulties beating their opponent, praising the opponent's skill in a particular area.

Politicians like John McCain have tried to ban MMA from the U.S, citing how violent the sport is, comparing it to a cock fight.

Did you notice McCain's hypocrisy here? (btw, I'm picking on all politicians here, including Obama) McCain tried to ban a sport he considers a cock fight, which turns out that competitors are more polite and respectful towards their opponents than politicians are at any dimension. Sure, in MMA you get physically hurt, but for a politician being attacked verbally, it is as bad if not worse.
I really do shrug on the dirty tactics of politicians, and in this respect, agree w/ G.Orwell's cynicism on politicians, in that "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

On another note, I (sadly) agree that “for the average American voter” negative campaign advertising is effective for the most part. Though I still have my doubts on the UW-Madison’s experimental methods, one thing that is certain is that people are more interested in negative talk than in appraisals. Following the schools of journalisms’ “highly admirable” motto, “Good news is no news”, it seems that “Positive campaigning is no campaign.” Hence the inevitable deluge of negative advertising.


PS: From a logical perspective, if politicians knew negative campaigning usually backfires, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all, since very few, if any, politicians would be using negative advertisements.
Post #2
Since I thought that my prev. post showed little substance, here I go again. After reading all the articles and watching all the videos, I felt that the data presented was biased enough so that every post so far (including the posts of the week) has generally been in favor of negative ads.

I disagree w/ the consensus in that negative campaigning is as good as the researchers at UW-Madison make it seem. To make my point easy to understand, I’d like to talk about Ronald Reagan’s Republican nomination process.

Reagan was a relative newcomer to the political arena when he decided to run for the oval office. His competitors included seasoned Washington veterans like George H.W. Bush. As usual, most of the candidates started the usual dirty campaigning to get the nomination. Reagan, on the other hand, proclaimed that he shall not insult or smear other Republican’s reputation, since they are all from the same party. According to Chris Matthews, author of Hardball, Reagan’s strategy worked (and worked it did). I am not saying Reagan won the Republican nomination (and the presidency) through purely positive advertising. Nevertheless, w/o smearing any other Republican candidate’s reputation, he achieved a rare feat.

Sure, professors like Goldstein beg to differ, saying that "Contrary to conventional wisdom, the more that people are exposed to negative advertising, the more they know, the more engaged they are and the more likely they are to vote." The problem is that the actual conventional wisdom is that negative advertising is better than positive advertising. Perhaps in general it may be so, but it may also be because the professors overlooked a confounding variable or a ‘lurking variable’ which led them to believe that negative advertising is beneficial for American democracy.

Should we ask Reagan’s opinion on this issue? (by the way, he died of age+Alzheimer’s)

PS: I do realize this contradicts my prev. post, but I just wanted to play the devil’s advocate.

Campaign Financing
Steffany Flook
Every candidate that fights for the spot as the president of the United States has gotten on that podium, promised something for the future, yet never delivered. Some say they aren't fulfilling their duty that the people voted on them for and some say it was just foolish words that came out of their mouth to make people hope for change. However, it depends on the situation. A pledge is not specific rules that is written down on paper but more like an oath. An oath that senator Obama took, and is trying to go for with, but is being critisized. An oath not saying that every promise will be kept, but just one promise will out shine them all and that is that they will do what is best for the people. It is a fact that Barack Obama said that he supported public financing and will use such funding if he became the democratic candidate. However, ladies and gentlemen, the situation in the United States has changed merely overnight.
I strongly disagree with the comment declared by kristenwook123@yahoo. com and normanjesica@aol.com when they say that "Obama has gone back on his word..." because he has not. He has done the complete opposite as a matter a fact. Obama made the oath and promise that he will do what is best for the American people, and he is. As day turns to night, the United States has been aware as how deep of an economic crisis they are in, and need every buck they can reach for. Every family from left to right in the middle class and lower class, are struggling for every cent and cant afford to lose not even one more dollar.
I support senator Barack Obamas choice on choosing private funding than public because it is what makes more sense and in the end will be more successful. Look at the facts: Not thousands, not millions, but billions of dollars are being put at risk because there is no more money anywhere else. Banks are lending out more money that their costumers can account for and are never able to recieve it back. Thousands of people are declaring bankrupcy and so are banks. Banks that contain thousands of citizens money that has now disappeared in thin air. The economy of the United States is labeled as the largest national economy in the world and is now plumeting. The wall street crisis showed a 524 point drop- which is the largest drop in Americas history. I dont understand how calzony@aol.com can be so supportive of public financing at a time like this.
Public financing takes $3 dollars of the peoples incomes, when private funding is given by those who really can afford to give them. At such a time in Americas history, $3 dollars is not just a one digit number, but a one digit number that will help a family or individuals survival. Obama is doing what is best for the people and right now the best thing is not to put any pressure on them economically, as they already have that burden on their shoulders.
The internet online fund-raising prowess is one i also agree with. Its a change from the "nearly dead" public financing issue. A change from the norm, which the U.S greatly needs as they have been fighting the issues of public financing for way to long. The online fund raising is an overhaul which was greatly needed to overthrow the "flawed system" and is perfect at this time. Obama is getting his money from those who can afford to give it to him. It dosen't matter how much they are giving, but its the fact that they want to give it. They arent complaining but instead they want to be part of a voice that will be distributed to a nation. Whether its five, ten or fifteen dollars or 5,000, its given by those who can squeeze it out of their pockets, not those who are struggling each day to put clothes on their kids bodies.
By doing this Obama is not showing his incompetence as a candidate as normanjesica@aol.com refers to but hes showing his strength. Hes going through with an oath he gave to his people, that of doing what is best for them. Bringing forth success, not war or distrausities. Not a request to ask for more money to send troops to a Iraq which is like sending them on a bridge to nowhere, but instead he wants change. He's showing that he can bring forth that change and make it a success. While Mccain is using those 5.8 million dollars from the treasury which should be saved for the American people at this time, Obama is standing by the people and providing change along with success. In conclusion, i do not think that Obama should have used public financing, but doing what he is doing now. A brighter future comes with change, and right now that change is being shown by Barack Obama not John McCain.

Health Care
Brianna Seyarto
After reading both platforms, I have to agree with previous posts in saying that this is not one of those topics where John McCain's proposal is not on the other side of the world from that of Barack Obama. They both seem to have recognized that the extremities often argued in this issue are both fruitless; that is to say, we can not simply hand health care over to the government and give away taxes, nor can we hand hoards of money over to insurance companies with minimal limitation. I am glad they both seem to have reached some sort of middle ground on this issue, and I think more of America's social issues need to be handled in this manner. However, I do have some hesitations regarding both proposed plans.

John McCain's plan seemed, to me, more clearly defined in term of short-term goals which would help achieve the long-term objective of improving healthcare. I also approve of his desire to give health care back to the control of the people, rather than their employers. I think that in such an unstable economic situation, as well as a society that does not tie us down to one job our entire lives, a citizen's health care should not be so tied down to his or her employment. It contributes to the lack of control most people seem to feel in regards to the issue. However, while McCain's goals are clearly defined, it appears that the fulfillment of these goals relies to heavily on the cooperation of employers and insurance companies. Less of his reform needs to focus on competition between companies, and more of his reform needs to focus on the limitations of these companies. I think the competition between insurance carriers is, in fact, part of the problem. Profit becomes too huge of an issue, and while this is understandable, it is actually discouraging the purchase of health insurance. I think without the regulation of health care companies, it would become difficult to actually make a change based on John McCain's platform.

Barack Obama's plan definitely focuses moreso on controlling these companies, and I support that. However, I have the same issue with his proposal as I do with many of his other platforms and proposals: there is no indication of how he's going to achieve the set goals, making me believe that he's a lot less likely to do so. I laughed when I read his objective of "Reducing the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees". You CAN'T reduce the cost of manufacturing high-technology equipment, providing adequate medical care from doctors, housing in a hospital, and medication. The money has to come from somewhere. He talks about using the money from his $250,000+ tax plan, but that seems to be his cureall for the nation's social problems; it can't be used for everything. I also think that his definition of healthcare was used extremely loosely, as the the plan seemed to flounder around from drug types to preparedness for terrorist attacks. Yes, preparation for a national crisis is necessary, but for something that happens every fifty years or so in this country, it shouldn't be the foundation of our health care plan.

I tentatively lean towards McCain's plan only because it seems to have more structure, but I think that for it to be successful, some rethinking needs to be done in terms of who controls the system, and how to reform that fundamental aspect of this nation's health care.

Iris Smith
One of the main facts about health care in the US is that it is the only large developed nation that doesn’t have a universal health care system (Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences). To best understand it, I looked at the data that compares health care among developed nations. The US has about 15-20% of its population lacks health care. The government pays most per person on health care (about 4-5 thousand), and yet other countries that pay less are able to maintain universal health care. There are two sides. Life expectancy is 70 (24th in world rankings) and also ranks low on child mortality and less than ½ Americans support the current system compared to England which is over 80% support. The other side is that, if you have health insurance, the United States provides some of the fastest services and ranks top in responsiveness. Surgeries and complicated procedures can be performed with minimum delay while it takes months to get surgery in Canada. The problem is that American health care is the best in the world if you have health insurance but difficult to get if you don’t have insurance. For example, hospitals aren’t allowed to turn anyone away but without health insurance you must pay and the chances for an efficient follow ups decrease. Reforming health care would be to get better care for those 40+ million people without it. Obviously, just putting more money into it isn’t the solution.
Source: http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInTheUsa.html

John McCain’s vision is to “restore control to the patients themselves.” He says families should be in charge of their health care dollars and treatment and care should be made more affordable. Health care is expected to take 20% of the GDP on health care. The goal of the candidates is to reduce those costs. He plans to work with government and business to decrease costs of drugs, improve treatment and prevention in chronic diseases, give greater care in walk-in clinics, reform Medicare and Medicaid, encourage states to lower costs, and, in conclusion, lower costs and reform the system. Basically, he wants to increase the opportunity to have health care by lowering costs.

Obama has a similar belief. The goal of both candidates is to lower costs and make medicine more available. Obama wants to decrease health care costs by 2,500. An issue is that insurance companies are too much of a business. Obama wants to make them cover pre-existing conditions.

By looking at both sites, I tend to agree with the democrats on health care. I don’t agree on the principal of socialized medicine but completely privatized business makes it too much of a business. Obama’s plan makes more sense to me. They both have the same goal but Obama has set a goal: lower costs by at least 2,500. I like that he wants to work with small businesses having trouble providing optimal health care. He will give credit to these mom and pop shops which is great. I don’t really understand the tax part but his site contains more numbers, and details than McCain’s. He has a set goal. I tend to agree with McCain on more issues and even Obama and McCain are both similar on health care however Obama’s plan sounds better, lower costs (he is more specific) and work with small businesses to make health care more available.

Immigration
Aaron Stamp
Self-Deportation is essentially the ‘easy way to go’ for illegal immigrants who are targeted for deportation and already tried and sentenced to be deported and are willing to leave peacefully through this program without being found and forcefully removed from the United States. Although this seems logical and, for individuals supporting illegal immigration deportation, is a much more convenient way to deal with the issue for United States residents and the illegal immigrants, the actual action of an illegal immigrant turning themselves in after already knowingly illegally crossing the border would be extremely rare and it has been as only six individuals have utilized the program while the others simply ignore the court mandate to leave the United States. Due to this, Customs Enforcement has been tracking down individuals targeted for illegally immigrating and forcefully removing them from the country, the action which the self-deportation program aimed to mitigate. The effectiveness of the program would be applicable and most likely succeed if in fact the immigrants actually did pay deference to the court order but as the narrow turn-out in self-deportees shows, this obviously is not the case and thus the program is not entirely affective. Coinciding with this is the reality that there is hardly an incentive for the illegal alien turning themselves in after ordered to do so, besides evading the forceful removal from customs agencies, which in some opinions could be seen as a valid incentive as reported cases have shown that deportation agencies have sometimes acted with overwhelming roughness and lack of respect when removing an immigrant, but common judgment implies that if an individual were willing to risk crossing the border illegally, they probably would be willing to reside in the United States despite being found and ordered to leave.

Personally I find the program has some merit in it in the fact that if it actually worked and the aliens turned themselves in, the deportation agencies would probably look more functioning and in control of the illegal immigration situation. However, I understand that this is simply not the case for individuals seeking prospects in America and simply being found and ordered to leave by a judge would never hinder the possibility of providing a better future for anyone and their families. The risk of being found again and forcefully removed from the country is a risk willing to be taken as turning oneself in is parallel to giving up after advancing so far in an important endeavor.

As for the article dealing with local government supposedly collaborating with border patrol to deport the illegal immigrants gathering in Lake Elsinore, I support the stance given by the city. Yes, it was an error on the part of the city to place trash cans in the areas where illegal aliens gathered to work to ‘clean up’ the area, and that is understandably a vicarious indifference on the part of the city as acknowledging they exist there. However, when federal and border patrol agents decide to act to gather the immigrants from these spots, It’s not the cities responsibility to defend them simply because they turned a jaundice eye to the situation beforehand. Act 262 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that if an individual is age fourteen or older and from another country, it is their duty to register in this country by means as stipulated in the Alien Registration Act within 30 days of their arrival of the United States. These immigrants in Lake Elsinore, although causing no harm to the individuals around them and more often than not simply looking for work, violated a federal law and it is the duty of the government to enforce the repercussions of doing so. It is understandable on the immigrants’ viewpoint that because they were allowed to stay before, they should be still allowed to stay, but that is simply not the case. The Californian article states that the recent hiring of more border patrol agents is a probable cause for the influx of attention to that area and thus the enforcement of the laws. The wishy-washy actions of the city’s government acting indifferent to the immigrant situation and then supporting the border patrol in acting in accordance to the laws regarding illegal immigration is not proper and justifiably unfair on part of the immigrants; however, law is law and state and federal regulations supersede the actions of a local city government. Can it be called unfair? Yes of course, but crossing the border illegally has repercussions understood by the men and women doing so and the enforcement of those is a necessity to enforce government authority.


Immigration and Nationality Act
<http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb816838a4>
Foreign Policy
Tim Vita
7 years, 4,000 killed, 60,000 wounded, and $2.7 trillion dollars spent. The main objective for Iraq was to find the weapons of mass destruction, end Hussein's reign and in turn free the Iraqi people from an oppressive and dangerous dictatorship. As of today, the weapons have not been found, but Hussein's rule has ended with his execution. the objective now is to establish a stable democracy for its people to prevent further influence of terrorism and oppression.

With a new president ready and quickly approaching, each have a different viewpoint on dealing with the events the Bush administration has created. It has been speculated that Obama's plan is to irresponsibly uplift every soldier out and simply leave Iraq to fend for themselves which in turn may make them worse off than they actually were. Not so. Obama and Biden describe their plan for Iraq as a "Responsible, Phased Withdrawal" detailing that "we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#phased-withdrawal) Their goals are to have a residual force remain in Iraq for counter-terrorist purposes with keeping nothing permanent and allowing Iraqi leaders to move toward a better government for its citizens. This process will be slow and careful.

John McCain "strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred."(http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm) His plan states that it would be a mistake to leave before Al Qaeda is solely without power in the middle east and a trained and security force is established. A withdraw from Iraq will apparently result in "[provoking] sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East." The McCain Palin war goal is to "establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home. "(http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm).

As noble as John McCain is in helping a country definitely incapable of helping itself, I am going to have to support Barrack Obama's plan. In a conversation with my parents on the war in Iraq about two years ago, I asked "I really don't understand why we're even in Iraq again." They simply replied "9/11." Logically, this would be a legitimate reason to enter the war. We were attacked by another country so then we must go fight in order to protect us and preserve peace. Simple enough. But then I thought to myself, weren't we attacked by a group of terrorists? Didn't they already take responsibility for 9/11? Isn't Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Perhaps America got a bit sidetracked? In our fight against terrorism, we also decided to play world police and kick the door down on Hussein saying "we don't like what your doing either so lets WAR!" I can see why this would be admirable to some. We, the most powerful country, are using that power to help people across the seas who are being oppressed by a dictator. With the dictator gone we then decided to establish a government that could successfully create a prosperous society. Once the government is established maybe we should just stay to keep an eye on things. This seems like quite a bit to accomplish. How are we doing this?? $2.7 trillion dollars out of future generations pockets. The breakdown to me sounds like we are sinking deeper and deeper into problems in the future in our own country to benefit another one across the ocean. My generation is about to be economically destroyed. Obama does not support the war in Iraq. He believes that we got distracted from the real goal of the war and in turn we are spending much more than we can afford stating "I believe the administration lumped together Saddam Hussein, a terrible guy, with Al Qaeda which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and as a consequence we ended up misdirecting our resources." Iraq and the terrorist groups that attacked us are not part of the same group or ideology. Obama's withdrawal from Iraq is more practical and responsible than McCain rough and tough surge of troops. I have not read anywhere that John McCain has a specific timeline on when troops are coming home. It is simply as long as it takes with him. We are risking another Great Depression for another country's democracy? How long is it going to take to build a government like ours with so many problems occurring within the separate religious groups in the country itself?

The War in Iraq was started as a matter of being distracted from the real threat, the attackers of 9/11. Iraq doesn't look like it is anywhere near having an established democracy which causes us more time, troops, and money we don't have. If we must help other countries become stable, I believe we should first be the ones who must become stable. Bottom line: I don't want our country to suffer for the incentive of having another one having the chance to be better. Obama's withdrawal is the better plan.

Same Sex Marriage
Kendra Dahmer
For several years people have been questioning homosexuals rights, and even more so, homosexual marriage. In the United states this is a major controversial issue which each state is left to face individually. Increasingly, many people believe that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as any heterosexual couple. However, there are people who believe homosexuals should have all rights shared with heterosexuals excluding the right to become legally married.
Supposedly America is the land of the brave and the home of the free. For decades millions of people have flocked to the United states for freedom, but more for equality. If the United States continues down the path that it is currently pursuing then it can no longer refer to it’s people as equal and free. Currently, the issue of gay marriage has become just that, an issue due to religion, government, and society.
The constitution clearly gives everyone the freedom of religion and therefore the freedom from religion. Since religion causes the most debates about gay marriage and the constitution gives religious freedom, religion shouldn’t dictate whether homosexuals can or can’t get married. Furthermore, religion has already corrupted society; gay marriage could not do any more harm. Moreover, if the constitution doesn’t have an amendment, then why shouldn’t gay marriage be legalized? (Religion and state are two separate things anyhow and your religion WILL NOT dictate how I live my life.)
Due to society homosexuals cannot get married. This is not a matter of should homosexuals be allowed to get married but can they. Just because you think homosexuals shouldn’t get married doesn’t mean that they can’t get married or don’t have the right to get married.
People say that homosexuality is unnatural when in fact homosexual tendencies occur in nature often. Why is it unnatural to love someone of the same sex. Its more unnatural to hate or discriminate someone who has found love, no matter what sex. Moreover, many gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals are born that way, and, if you have Christians beliefs, are created by god. Society has no right to dictate a persons life..
What makes society so grand that it can destroy a persons’ entire existence? What gives society the right to map out an entire life plan for millions of people they will never meet? To find true love is to find the meaning of life, society should not be able to take that away from anyone. The united States need to realizes that people are people and should be truly equal.
Living in the United States you realize exactly how privileged some people are, while others have only limited freedoms and rights. America is quickly transforming into a country that plays favorites, in favor of a society that attacks anyone whose different instead of what is honest and correct. It is demanded of every American to give all people the civil liberties which they are entitled to. Everyone deserves the same opportunities in life, are you willing to give them that chance?
I am for gay marriage and I would vote no on proposition 8. A constitutional amendment wouldn't benefit the state of California, especially since homosexual marriage has already been deemed legal and many people have already been wed. If this proposition passes several marriages will become void. To me giving thousands of people everything they want and revoking it without a second thought, or even a feeling of remorse is cruel and unusual punishment.
Post #2
oh and just a few more questions...

Shouldn't all americans have the same rights?

Does being gay, lesbian, or bi make you any less American than a straight citizen?

If straight Americans can be married what makes homosexual marriage so different?

if you said yes to the first and to the second that's hypocritical don't you think?
Post #3
Seventy-five percent of all American citizens support gay rights, however over fifty percent of these same people are against gay marriage. This means that at minimum thirty-seven percent of Americans who support gay rights support gay marriage. This demonstrates that though people want gay to be equal, they don’t want them to be in every aspect. Many suggests that this is because of misunderstandings about homosexual relationships, including the stereotype that homosexuals can not maintain a relationship suitable for marriage due to the fact that they are shallow and immoral. They are not equipped and are too promiscuous many argue In fact gay marriage would reduce promiscuous sex and make their objective to marry a moral choice.
There are other misconceptions such as what marriage is actually defined as and the purpose of it as well. Marriage is defined as “A relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other” . In this it does not mention a word about a man or women relationship or heterosexuality in anyway. Though the technical definition does not exclude homosexuals from marriage, the religious definition does to an extreme extent.
Religion is one of the largest reasons for objection to domestic partnership. To religious believers marriage is defined as a unity of a male and female. According to most religions homosexual behavior is a sin and forbidden by God. Christians view this as a direct command from God and if it is disobeyed, the consequences would keep them from entering his realm. Gay couples and homosexual rights activists would argue that the Christian religion does not govern the United States in which Americans live. This means that freedom of religion includes the lack of religion and that governmental decisions should be free from religious propaganda; though it is no secret that Religion does play a major role in passing any law.
“Gay marriages would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so”. But, According to the Human Rights Campaign, a very liberal pro-gay alliance, “Granting marriage rights to same-sex couples would not require Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other religions to perform these marriages. It would not require churches, synagogues or other religious institutions to permit these ceremonies to be held on their grounds. It would not even require that religious communities discuss the issue.” This is another conflict that the government must face. If the constitution guarantees religious freedom how can any state force someone to go against Gods word and perform a homosexual marriage ritual? Technically they can not be forced to but then how would the marriage be validated? As the Human rights campaign stated this would not be a problem since marriages would not take place in churches, if so desired. However, religion is only part of the controversy.
Why is it that marriage is automatically linked to procreation? If this is to be true then how can it be legal for marriages to take place where a partner is sterile or impotent or postmenopausal? To answer this marriage would have to stand as more important than procreation, sexual satisfaction personal commitments, and religious or moral expression. “If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that type of reason" .
Many people a raised thinking that homosexuality is “unnatural”. Though in nature homosexual activity occurs often ; it is not obscure behavior. In a study its was shown that four-hundred-fifty species of animals out of one-thousand-five-hundred have homosexual tendencies . Moreover, economic crisis, as well, blunder the issue.
Economically the legalization of same sex-marriage in America would obligate businesses to recognize homosexual families, thus forcing them to provide benefits for them the same ways as offered to heterosexuals. This, arguably, could cause a recession in the United states’ economic foundation because of the amount of family benefits being offered. Yet, the economy today is at its worst how could homosexual marriage make it worse? However, it seems that society, as hypocritical and conformed as it is, maybe warming up to homosexuals living among them.
Over time more adjustments have been made in favor of gay marriage. Perhaps times are changing and homosexuality is becoming more tolerated.
All over America homosexual marriages have been legalized. A bill was sent and passed by the state assembly on January 25, 2008 that legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland. California currently recognizes domestic partnership and even offers homosexuals benefits. Recently, a gay marriage bill was passed in California and is waiting to be re-voted on in November. This amendment could in turn nullify recent domestic partnerships, marriages and take away homosexual benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I still think that voting no on prop 8is the right choice!
“Marriage is a basic human right an, an individual personal choice, the same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully an equally in rights, responsibilities; and commitment of civil marriage” . “Gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accommodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law” . Just because they are not what society wants to see or recognize does not mean that they should be deprived of the basic rights they were granted at birth.


www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
www.familyresearchinst.org www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm
www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm
www.focusonthefamily.com/press/pressreleases/A000001088.cfm www.grove.ufl.edu/wggsa/gaymarriage.html
Sides Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Human Sexuality. www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
http://www.hrc.org/issues/5517.htm
www.wtopnews.com
www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesextime.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/index.html
Post #4
I know its after five but it seems to me like a lot of people don't understand what prop 8 actually does.

As of right now homosexual marriage is legal in the state of California. Many people have already been married.
Prop 8 was eliminate the right of lesbians, gays, bi's, and transgender people to have a same-sex marriage by means of a constitutional amendment for the state. The marriages that have already taken place would be void.

I'm still against prop 8. I always will be. One day I would like to get married and no government is going to stop me from marrying the man or woman I love.

watch these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IxLwgbbEKc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-pSye9W7FY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cunTVjtyZv8

this is from canada but watch it. it is my favorite one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z0ZSImjTHQ
Post #5
and people want to take this overwhelming happiness away?
this made me cry, maybe in just a compassionate female.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NiuMo6RihHw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NiuMo6RihHw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Post #6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiuMo6RihHw

The Economy
Bernard Teller
What I have noticed between both candidates is that Obama just lists all the things he wants to do/accomplish and sounds really good but almost too good which makes him in my opinion very unreliable. Sure it’s easy to say one thing and make that thing sound very attractive but when it comes to actually making that thing into a reality, Obama lacks the skill to accomplish it. While Obama lists all the great thing he promises to do for his country McCain lists incentives to make companies and people want to create those great things Obama wants to accomplish. They both have great ideas but I strongly think McCain can actually do what he says and not just look/sound good as Obama does.

The first topic I would pick would be McCain’s plan for Driving:

Look at the difference between what Obama and McCain say-

McCain:

"Award $300 million prize to the company that can produce a plug-in hybrid battery technology at 30% of current costs, allowing commercial development of plug-in hybrid cars."

Obama:

"Aim to get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on the roads within six years."
The first thing I notice between what they say is that McCain does not for one, 'aim' to do anything, he says what he 'will' do. Why do people like to compete? Why do we pay 5 dollars to try to get a ball into a basket at a carnival? We do these things for the reward. McCain’s idea of rewarding the company with 300 million dollars who produces a plug-in hybrid battery technology at 30% of current costs is a great incentive to get people/companies thinking of ways to become more fuel efficient. Obama simply says that he will try to get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on the roads within six years. Sure he can say that, and then we Americans can hope he accomplishes that, but the problem with that is that we are relying on him to make a change. McCain is giving thousands of companies the incentive to make a fuel efficient car. What’s more reliable? Thousands of people and companies working together to create fuel efficient cars, or Obama and his team? I would easily pick the people of America which is what McCain is doing.

McCain:

"Remove or reduce tariffs on imported ethanol."

Obama:
"Provide $4 billion in retooling credits and loans to help domestic manufacturers switch to more fuel-efficient cars."

McCain is stating a very simple, easy to understand plan of reducing ethanol costs, it should be easy to do. Obama in the meantime is saying that he will provide 4 billion dollars to other people to basically have fun with it and spend it on trying to invent a fuel efficient car, am I the only one who can see what’s wrong with that? People have been experimenting on making more fuel efficient cars without success, all Obama is doing by giving out 4 billion dollars to people who have already failed in making a fuel efficient car is prolonging their failure.



For my second topic I pick McCain’s Gas Prices plan:


Look at the difference between what each candidate is saying-

McCain:
“Suspend the 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gas tax during the summer.”

Obama:
“Keep gas tax in place”


I have no idea why Obama would keep the gas taxes in plan, all this does is create emptier American pockets. It may not sound like a lot but cutting that 18.4 cent tax on a gallon of gas is a lot. Lets say you need 20 gallons of gas, that’s 20*18.4=368 cents /100 =3.68 Dollars, so every time you fill up your car with 20 gallons to gas you would save 3.68 dollars, I fill up my car twice a week, that’s 7.36 dollars a week times 4 is 30 dollars a month times 12 is 360 dollars a year, your saving almost a dollar a day on gas with McCain’s plan. Just for that McCain takes my vote, he saves me money and isn’t that basically shat everyone wants, what everyone works for everyday? What I love about what Obama claims he will do is that he leaves what he says up for interpretation.

Obama:
“Eliminate oil and gas loopholes.”
What the heck does that mean? There are probably many, many loopholes, which ones does he plan on eliminating? He can’t eliminate all the loopholes that’s for sure, it would be great, but he just cant, nothing in the government is perfect.

McCain:
“Repeal the 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.”
I just went over how saving 18.4 cents a gallon saves you 360 dollars a year, imagine how much money we would save my not having to spend 54 cents on a gallon when imported which is how we get most of our ethanol.


The bottom line is that McCain is interested in saving the American people money, he does not claim that he can do things but rather get the incentive to get people to do/fix the issues that are going around America them selves rather then depending on the government so much which obviously has not been working so well in the economy.

Sammie Davis
The first topic I would like to address is Wall Street because it is such a timely issue right now. Both candidates, at this point, agree that the massive deregulation that took place in the financial and capital markets can take a lot of the blame for our current fiscal crisis. The points provided for the two candidates’ plans for Wall Street are almost identical to one another. They both would like to see the following actions take place: enforcement of capital requirements, regulatory in the financial sector, keep a better eye on the bank firms, and define the rolls of investment and corporate banks more clearly. The only differences between their plans are the details given under each category. Obama is a bit more detailed and both of them have slightly varied viewpoints from one another. To start, in the first point McCain would like to “increase” capital requirements whereas Obama recognizes that first they must be “imposed.” In regard to regulatory, McCain would like “some to be removed” while Obama would rather “streamline [a] framework” so as to strengthen and define the fiscal service sector. Both candidates, once again, see the need to better “examine” the bank firms, yet Obama gets more specific and even outlines a plan to create a commission to provide such oversight. Both McCain and Obama would likely be able to help mend situations with Wall Street, yet it just seems that with Obama’s clearer recommendations would be a more effective, faster solution.

Another topic I thought would be good to bring up is that of energy security. The candidates have several similarities and differences to their plans. The first point each candidate makes is the critical need to reduce carbon emissions. McCain claims that he will reduce them “60% below 1990 levels” by 2050 and Obama is a bit more ambitious with a goal of 80% below 1990 levels by the same time. Obviously, one would want to side with Obama’s plan if he truly is capable of doing so in a safe, effective manner. McCain would like to manipulate the corporate and market economy to create renewable energy and Obama instead wants to have a more exact plan by simply investing “$150 billion” over the next ten years. With the numbers being tossed around these days, this is a rather miniscule amount for a decade and is completely acceptable for such a valuable circumstance. Both plan to allow offshore drilling, but Obama would like to do so in a gradual fashion by keeping it limited. This is more practical than simply lifting the ban because there is only a limited amount of oil. If we use it all up before finding a reasonable replacement, we will have a much larger issue on our hands. In the last two point of each candidate’s plan, each candidate references different plans. McCain’s plan to apply “$2 billion” to help advance clean coal technology is a needed plan, yet the money may be better spent looking for alternatives to coal rather than wasting the time to try and advance it. I do not agree with McCain’s desire to “construct 45 new reactors” by 2030 for nuclear power enhancement in our nation. Such construction should be the least of our concerns until the economy is dealt with. Obama’s plan to require that 10% of our nation’s resources be renewable by 2013 is quite intelligent. This may be a bit soon, but setting a goal does not harm anyone. Such a requirement will vastly improve the financial situations of Americans bearing in mind that energy is the most difficult expense for American families to afford at this time of economic instability. This ties into Obama’s hope that our demand for electricity will be reduced to 15% by 2020. If this plan does not interfere with the energy business in terms of disrupting the economy, it is another excellent idea.

For the two topics I examined, Obama tended to have stronger, more detailed ideas. Although both often had acceptable and often similar goals, I seemed to favor those of Senator Obama.

The Environment/Energy
Kaitlin Gebbie
The environment is an element that no one, Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, male or female, can avoid, and yet the bold reality of it has been ignored, until now. The Earth’s atmosphere is continuously increasing in disorder, or entropy, due to the second law of thermodynamics. The inhabitants of the Universe carelessly emit harmful toxins, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere, and thus catalyze this deterioration. Action must be taken. The natural resources of the Earth will not last an eternity, so why are its people consuming them as if they will never disappear? The matter pertaining to energy can be viewed as a teeter totter: while the prices of “food, electricity, airline fares, and home heating” increase, the values of “homes, job opportunities, automobile sales, and the stock market” decrease. I believe that in 2008, it is ridiculous to be manufacturing automobiles, airplanes, and other vehicles whose methods of power are continuing to be based off of some of the first combustion machines. Automobiles are inefficiently burning fuel, polluting the air we breathe each and every day, and still, no alternatives have been successfully diffused throughout the population. For example, China seemed to make an effort to “clean the air” of Beijing only because the Olympics were taking place there. This much of an effort should be made at all times, although the damage done can probably never be reversed. In a world revolved around progress in technology, medicine, politics, and economics, I find it puzzling that this environmental and energy problem is still relevant.

American addiction to oil is not a new problem. In 1973, members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) announced that they would no longer ship oil to nations in support of Israel in its conflict with Syria, Egypt, and Iraq. Industrial economies relied heavily on receiving crude oil from OPEC, but due to the heavy inflation, prices became astronomically high, quadrupling the price of one barrel of oil to $12 in 1974. This disrupted the traditional flow of capital, allowing oil exporting nations to become extremely wealthy, and thus, powerful. I fear that if the United States remains dependent on the Middle East for its petroleum, natural gas, and oil, such tragedy will not fail to repeat itself. Also, in 1990, an energy crisis arose due to the first Gulf War. The oil fields of Kuwait were burned, in effect, halting oil output, as Saddam Hussein retreated. OAPEC, in an effort to solve the problem, increased their oil supply in hopes of stabilizing the oil market. However, the exact opposite was initiated, bringing a barrel of oil to the price of $50.50.

The article claims that the three reasons that gas and oil prices are so high are: “Diminished oil production from major oil fields, fewer discoveries of large, new oil fields, and immense industrial development in what used to be called the ‘third world’”. John McCain is behind President Bush in his call for offshore drilling and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In an effort to lower gas prices, he has also proposed to remove federal gas taxes. On the contrary, Senator Barack Obama believes and votes that vehicles require higher miles-per-gallon systems. He also proposes a ten-year $150 billion investment toward low emission coal plants and renewable fuels. In my opinion, Obama’s solution is more progressive, in that it promotes new sources of energy, rather than rely on new locations abundant in oil.

I believe that offshore drilling is necessary if the United States desires to become more independent in oil production. We must no longer be linked to threatening and hostile countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Iraq. Regardless of which candidate takes office, I feel that the first way to improve America’s energy ‘crisis’ and the environment would be to allow offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I realize that perhaps these actions will not relieve gas prices, but it would certainly reduce the cost for individual barrel of oil. Simultaneously, I believe that offshore drilling should not be used as a crutch or an excuse for not promoting new alternatives to energy. Offshore drilling may be a temporary solution, and I am aware that these resources will one day run out as well, putting Americans back in this current problem. Methods such as solar energy, hydrogen fuel cells, and wind turbines must be pursued immediately.