Hygro

It would be ironic if Contre's camera met it's demise on my leg of the journey.

No problem. I tend to just don't bother anymore when he asks for substance and offers none himself. I've seen him ignore people who still make the effort and thought you deserved better than that.

OK I guess I get what you're saying. I obviously don't have knowledge to verify or deny it.

How is 16 trillion in debt "A fake problem." That just doesn't make sense to me.

I do understand the theory on why debt is OK in a depression (Because people are suffering and takign it means making their lives better... now... I'm not sure how worth it that tradeoff is though) but we aren't in a depression so why aren't we paying it off?

I'm apathetic enough about this election that I could be convinced to more strongly support either side. Right now I just think both sides suck? How much more likely is Romney to start another war in the Middle East? Obama hasn't exactly been the noninterventionist I would like, but we know Gov. Romney won't be either and at least Obama doesn't seem to be rushing into an assault on Iran.

On the other hand, I fear for the economy under Obama. I'm not saying Romney will be any better, but we've seen that Obama has managed to increase the debt dramatically without seeming to care too much about it.

That's a fair assessment on both counts and you're right, Romney has been dishonest about his platform, no matter what he really believes, since he's given more than one position on each issue and flipped between them.

I really don't know what to think to be honest. Obama should certma should be impeached for lying about US citizens being killed for political reasons. And that's not a partisan "I hate Democrats" either, I know Biden would be his replacement.

If nothing else, the lie should certainly tick me off. Actually, Hillary's lie ticks me off too. Why on earth did she take responsibility for something that is Obama's responsibility, and his alone?

I was this close to picking Obama over Romney on foreign policy grounds, in spite of my disagreement with Obama on other issues, and the obvious fact that I can't vote so its all superficial anyway.

That embassy thing put me back in Romney's camp. If Obama is that incompetent AND willing to lie about it (Ignoring the possibility of outright treason) does he really belong in office, however bad he may be? (If it were Jimmy Carter running against Obama I'd say the same dang thing.)

I did, I just haven't gotten a chance to reply yet. Even when I do I doubt I'll be much help.

I might prefer Romney for this reason alone, however, although I don't know enough about it yet...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=AverageMixRelated

What tavern thread?

I really don't know to be honest, I don't really have a good metric to use.

I do know that Obama has not been doing a whole lot of good for the economy and that the economy is still struggling. I know its fashionable to blame Bush but c'mon, he's been out for four years. Its fashionable to blame Bush for his two wars, but A: The Democrats voted for them too, and B: Obama could have pulled out of both a long time ago.

Who really deserves the credit or blame for the economy? I know congress plays somewhat of a role but I don't know how much.

I've heard that NY Times is very biased towards the left but I have no idea if that's so or not.

I'm prettty torn this year, even though I can't vote.

It comes down to economics, which I think Republicans are typically better at although I don't know how good Romney would be, social policy, the main issue that I care about being the life issue ("Anti-abortion" to avoid sugarcoating) which the Republicans pay lip service to but will never do anything about, and foreign policy, where I think Mitt Romney has no idea what the crap he's doing, and will perhaps be even more likely than Obama to start another war and force us to pay higher taxes for no good reason (Whatever you think the tax rates are going to be, I'm sure we agree they shouldn't be going to nationbuilding.)

Right now I'm picking Obama on foreign policy grounds (He's been deplorable but I think Romney will be even worse) as bad foreign policy negatively effects the economy AND civil liberties. But Obama is only barely better in that regard, so I can hardly get excited about him.

I believe that they should be allowed to have civil unions. I get you might not agree with my reasons, but my reason is esentially that it gives basically the same legal benefits while withholding any "Stamp of approval". Because my problem with it isn't that they can do as they please and get legal benefits, its the moral acceptance that I have issue with. But according to certain people, that would make me almost identical to the WBC That kind of thing bothers me, and I feel like the mayor is encouraging that type of behavior with his statements, even if inadvertantly.

I also feel like, even if the mayor has a problem with where Cathy's money is going, he should address that, and not a pro-traditional marriage (Yes, anti-gay marrriage) statement that is the personal opinion of the guy. If you want to boycott Chickfila for their CEO's stance, fine, but I think its unacceptable for a political figure to encourage one.

As for why, I don't know where Dan Cathy stands, but it leaves no room for nuance. Either you want to prosecute and "punish" homosexuals, or you support gay marriage and reject the Christian definition of "traditional" marriage altogether. For me, I believe the only marriage is between two members of the opposite gender. Now, I normally don't think that my morality should be "Enforced" on anyone, and that includes homosexuality, but I feel like the government desigating it an "Official" marriage goes beyond just "We aren't going to force you to live by the 'traditional' lifestyle,", its an actual ENDORSEMENT of the relationship. If gay marriage isn't allowed, nobody is going to get fined or arrested for conducting a ceremony.

That gets back to the "Tolerating intolerance" thing. Honestly, if you want to tolerate everyone, you have to include those who disagree with gay marriage, or who disagree with the idea that all ways lead to heaven, or whatever. I can't stand the statement "I'll tolerate anything except intolerance" because the people who say it usually think toleration and acceptance are the same thing and it really says they won't accept Christianity because of its exclusivist claims. I can tolerate homosexuals, but I don't agree with their lifestyle. Many people on the "Left" don't see this, they think there's either total acceptance or borderline WBC level bigotry. Its not really like that.

I guess its "Improper" in the same sense of that Alabama politician who said openly that Jesus was the onyl way to Heaven shortly after his election. Don't know if you had a problem with that one, but a lot of liberals did.

I think the Mayor of Boston's words left a lot to be desired as far as being CLEAR that he had no intent to abuse his power. I also think that saying something like he said in response to the comment "We support traditional marriage" is kind of absurd, in spite of whatever other things the speaker may have done. Then again, I don't consider the statement "I support traditional marriage" to be problamatic anyway. I'm still marginally against gay marriage, althoguh I honestly don't care about it all that much as long as, if it is allowed, it is done at the proper (State) level.

Regarding opposition to gay marriage, that was certainly implied. Don't know what you mean by "Gay rights", everyone uses that term and its very much propaganda to use that term. Nobody opposes gay rights. Nobody wants gay people to be denied their constitutional rights because they are gay (WBC aside.) The vast majority of us simply don't believe marriage is one of those rights.

Gay marriage isn't what matters to me though, its the free speech aspect that really bothers me.

As far as my understanding goes, most of the Sodomy laws that existed a day ago were rarely enforced and more to keep gay sexual activities "Underground" than it was to actually lock anyone up. Not saying I agree with it. I don't. But not every conservative thinks the way I do either (obviously.)

That said, if your quote is what he said, I think that is a form of political bullying. If he were just a random person saying that about Chick Fila fine, but from his prestigious position it seems a little bit unjustified for him to speak for all Boston citizens this way. I guess it was kind of like when a bunch of liberals condemned one Alabaman politician for openly proselytizing. Except that what the mayor of Boston did was worse because he actually is doing what is at least borderline political bullying.

It backfired to an incredible extent as well.

What did the mayor of Boston say exactly? I didn't actually see his words, but the vibe I got was that he was trying (Even though he really couldn't) to tell Chic Fila that they were not allowed to expand into Boston because of what their CEO said.

I think it was stupid that the Mayor of Boston felt the need to "Condemn" Cathy anyways for answering a question he was asked. He didn't say anything anti-gay. He said "I support traditional marriage." I can understand why the whole "Marriage equality" debate exists, but I mean, people should be able to state their opinions, and if you are asked your opinion and you answer it, I think that's ridiculous that he'd condemn that. If you don't want the answer to a question, don't ask the question.

Thanks

I'll let you know what happens next year after I take the AP Literature test and the AP World History test (I'm also getting a college class in Economics and Public affairs from Syracuse.)

I have a short schedule this year though, only six or seven classes (I'll know for certain on Tuesday.) I'm going to strive NOT to catch senioritis and to at minimum ensure homework consistently gets done throughout the year That's the goal anyhow...