Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

LA: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 2/10)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
2/10/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Louisiana

2010 Senate
57% Vitter (R), 33% Melancon (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Vitter: 67 / 26
Melancon: 39 / 45

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 37 / 63 (chart)
Gov. Jindal: 70 / 28 (chart)

 

Comments
Stillow:

Despite the recession....there are some insanely popular governors out there!


____________________

jmartin4s:

If David Vitter is that popular in Louisiana, democrats shouldn't waste anytime time or money trying to win elections in that state. Its become obvious that Louisiana is full of wingnuts.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Like the people who re-elected William Jefferson? LOL...

____________________

Stillow:

Don't you mean racist, homophobic sexist wingnuts?

____________________

Mark in LA:

Don't you mean racist, homophobic sexist wingnuts?

Yes, Stillow. Despite the fact that you surround yourself with conservatives of the most saintly nature, Louisiana still has plenty of racist, homophobic, sexist, wingnuts. To deny this fact is the same as admitting that you don't know jack about Louisiana.

You ever want to start getting to know the real world, come on down and I'll give you a tour.

____________________

LordMike:

Maybe if Melancon ran as a Democrat instead of a republican wanna-be, he'd get more votes. I know it's crazy for a Democrat to run as an actual Democrat, but look at how all the conservadems are doing. The more they run to the right, the more their poll numbers sink. People don't like phoneys. If you're a Democrat and you act like a Republican, the people will vote for the real thing. This isn't new. Harry Truman said the same thing over 50 years ago! Dems will never learn, though...

Good riddance to Melancon... we don't need another Mary Landrieu in the Senate. The country is better served with Diaper David. How sad is that?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

I used to date a girl who was from Louisiana. She told me that in some of the small towns, if you are black or hispanic and not accompanied by a white person, it was best you did not stay long.

For a while I dated a black girl; we got some strange looks when we visited some small towns in Texas, particularly east TX.

There are definitely still racist people out there, regardless of party affiliation.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

" Harry Truman said the same thing over 50 years ago!"

Ronald Reagan also said the same thing. I bet he stole it from Truman. He was great at repackaging old FDR talking points as republican ones.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"I used to date a girl who was from Louisiana. She told me that in some of the small towns, if you are black or hispanic and not accompanied by a white person, it was best you did not stay long."

How different is that from if you are a white person visiting some black urban sections of L.A., NYC, Detroit or Chicago? There was an article in the NYT a few months back about a German family of tourists in Chicago who took the wrong turn and ended up being shot to death by black gang bangers.

Definitely some racists in the inner cities.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"racist, homophobic, sexist, wingnuts"?

Yet they still support their black gay female governor at a 70% clip? Odd..

I am white and used to date a black girl when I was in my early 20's living in super tolerant and enlightened Hollywood, CA and we got a constant barrage of dirty looks wherever we went. Particularly black males looking like they wanted to kick the crap out of me.

c'est la vie, mon amis..

____________________

obamalover:

Actually the vast majority of African Americans are cultural conservatives. That is why there is a lot of homophobia in that community. So saying there are a lot of racists in the inner city doesn't surprise me. Cultural conservative a.k.a. old fashioned are just euphemisms for bigotry.

____________________

BH:

"Actually the vast majority of African Americans are cultural conservatives."

You mean the constituency group that votes overwhelmingly for liberal democrats? Are they: "racist, homophobic, sexist, wingnuts" or do they get a pass from left-wing nutters because they "vote correctly?" Earth to the good folks at pollster.com...bigots come in all political shades and sizes.

____________________

Stillow:

FM makes a great point. The small isolated pockets of racism in the south are no different than black urban areas. As a white male you would not want to be walking alone in numerous parts of L.A., NYC, etc, etc......there is nno difference. You cannot escape the pockets of racism which exists on all sides.

You libs stereotype the south all the time. No one has yet given a rational explanaton that if the south is so racist and they hate non whites so much, why did Governor Jindal not only win in the deep south but has a 70 percent approval rating? That high number is almost unheard of in politics.

Racists do not elect brown skinned indians to govern them.......Jindal won and retains his popularity because he is a conservative....and as I hve told you libs many many times, its real conservatives who could care less what color someone is.....its usually liberals who make policy based on skin color....and who makes judgements based on skin color.

How else do you explain all those racist rednecks living in LA voting for Bobby Jindal.....?

According to Biden, Indian americans all belong in 7-11's remember? So yes, its always liberals who judge people based on race, not conservatives. with the exception of a shrinking number of isolated pockets.....probably the same amount of black racist pockets which exist in the major urban areas of the country.

____________________

obamalover:

@BH

If you look at polling on cultural issues African Americans are cultural conservatives.

@Stillow
Jindal is a religious crazy (believes in exorcism) so that is his saving grace with conservatives.

And it is not "small pockets of racism". If you look at any poll the vast majority of conservatives view gays and Lesbians negatively.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Palin polls much higher among southern rural white males than southern rural white females.

Guess we can strike the "sexist" label off those backwood hicks as well.

____________________

obamalover:

@StatyPolly

Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=

Conservative men vote with one thing... and it is not their brain.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"And it is not "small pockets of racism". If you look at any poll the vast majority of conservatives view gays and Lesbians negatively."

Like so many on the far left view religion and people of religion negatively? They must be racists too by your definition. Like Jindal being a "religious crazy" for believing in exorcism.

Give me a break. You;re really reachin their OL.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

One can view you negatively for your beliefs (as in wanting to deny gays marriage and adoption rights, or wanting to keep whites and blacks segregated). One can't, however, view you negatively for the way you were born. That is bigotry.

Anyhow, here you go:
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764

____________________

havoc:

And it is not "small pockets of racism". If you look at any poll the vast majority of conservatives view gays and Lesbians negatively

Nice Obama lover. Are you so biased that you cant tell that Gays and Lesbians are defined by there behavior not there race?

The said behavior is abnormal and sinfull. You can stick with the teachings of modern society I will stick with the teachings of Moses, Jesus and Paul.

Open your eyes and read Romans:1 18-32.

But thanks to Jesus there is hope for all of us. maybe even Dems.

____________________

obamalover:

@ havoc
you are born with it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

Viewing someone negatively for how they are born is disgusting and shameful.

____________________

havoc:

Born engaged in sexual activity?

Some researchers say people are born predisposed to violence, addiction, or other behaviors that any sane society would not excuse away. That behavior is wrong period.

The person makes a choice to engage in sexual behavior that is abhorrent.

What about a man who cheats on his wife? Isn't he just being who he was "born" to be?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think Elliot Spitzer should run again for governor and will probably win, considering what Sen. Vitter, the good catholic and cultural conservative. I think his re-election will bring a new standard of poor sexual ethics in Washington, and makes Bill Clinton's elaisons look okay.

____________________

obamalover:

@havoc

Homosexuals don't hurt anyone like violent criminals do or hurt themselves like addicts do. Moreover, you are a disgusting human being for even comparing homosexuals to violent criminals. The fact that people like you exist is why I don't believe in a god.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Some researchers say people are born predisposed to violence, addiction, or other behaviors that any sane society would not excuse away. That behavior is wrong period."

Violence, addiction, etc...are harmful behaviors, that's why civilized societies reject them. Homosexual activity is not harmful unless it involves rape, which is equally bad whether heterosexual or homosexual.

"Open your eyes and read Romans:1 18-32."

Do you know the context related to that passage? Or the various interpretations? Or are you taking a literal interpretation of two verses based on your own cultural context? A lot of it has to do with what the Roman culture. Paul was addressing former Christians that had converted to paganism. . In verse 27 Paul refers to the actions as "unseemly" and an "error." Not a sin worthy of damnation. Rejecting God met that standard. Verses 21 and 25 are key, and in verse 29 Paul indicts them for all kinds of immoral acts other than homosexuality.

Jesus did not mention homosexuals, even though there are some weak arguments that say a few passages in the Gospels refer to them.

Biblical interpretations aside, if you believe in the U.S. constitution, particularly the 14th amendment, then homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as everyone else and not be discriminated against.

"What about a man who cheats on his wife? Isn't he just being who he was "born" to be?"

This is a ridiculous argument that doesn't even merit a response. Cheating on one's spouse is a conscious choice, usually involving a complex decision process. Tell me, when did you decide to be heterosexual?

____________________

WilliamGray:

ObamaLover:

Your assertions are the views of the typical far left crazy that is infecting this country like a cancer. Disparaging a gay person is bad bad bad, but putting down someone for their religious beliefs is okay. That is pathetic.

Personally, i dont believe gays should be allowed to have children. As a psychologist, it is laughable to believe that the children will come out without psychological damage from a household like that. In addition, i doubt most homosexuality is innate. In my opinion it is formed by the environment around you and your reaction to that environment.

Its not that I'm in intolerant. In fact, just the opposite. I have no problem with gays adopting children or even having civil unions. Its just the notion that they are not automatically put at a disadvantage. Its not any worse than a single mother but still a disadvantage.

But the far lefts intolerance to people of faith simply shows the depths of their hatred for people who believe in things different from their own. Yet, they love to call out others for bigotry when they should really be looking at themselves.

____________________

Stillow:

Lots of posts since my comment and still none of you lefties can give a rational reason why a state in the deep south like LA full of supposed racists would not only vote for a indian, but give him such high approval. The only response was one from Obamablover with his normal lunacy.

If conservtives are so racist why on earth would they vote for a brown skinned indian? Why is Marco Rubio, a latino so popular with mainstream conservatives?

You libs pick out loons like David Duke, but for every David Duke there is a leftist to match, say Robert Byrd.

So other than obamalover offering up his moronic comparisions with homosexuals, is there any left who can explain why a bunch of racists would elect an indian fellow? Racism is a dying practice in both sides of the political ideaology pond. Most people, left or right have evolved past what someone looks like.

I also beleive congressman watts was from a very conservative mostly whtie district was he not?

Can someone also please tell obamalover its not conservatives who disallow things like gay marriage. states like CA and Maine have rejected it......those states don't have enough conservatives to sway the vote, it takes people who lean left to also oppose it......oh and did I also mention President Obama is opposed to things like gay marriage?

I for one couldn't care less what color you are or who you sleep with. I beelive I am in the majoirty on that.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"In addition, i doubt most homosexuality is innate. In my opinion it is formed by the environment around you and your reaction to that environment."

I don't think so. How can your environment or reaction to it make you gay? There's no standard "gay" environment. There were gay people in the past when the cultural environment was very different. Ie: today if we see a male who is very involved in musical theatre, we might think his attraction to that activity is related to his sexuality. Most people 60 years ago would never have made that connection. The relation between artistic expression and sexuality is a new phenomenon, or one that people have only begun to notice.

It's a chicken and egg argument. You can't prove the environment causes the sexual orientation any more than that it's the sexual orientation that leads one to seek out a certain environment. I suspect your opinion is based on coincidental observations and your own cultural biases.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Lots of posts since my comment and still none of you lefties can give a rational reason why a state in the deep south like LA full of supposed racists would not only vote for a indian, but give him such high approval."

Because you view racism as a caricature.

You obviously haven't studied race or racism in any depth. Being racist is not simply disliking someone based on skin color. The notions of superiority and inferiority are far deeper; the skin pigmentation is only one manifestation of a complex belief in a cultural hierarchy. It used to be more important than it is now, however. Prejudice based on socioeconomic class was always intertwined with American racism.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - My freind....you are the most classic example of someone who isobviously young and lacks actual expereince out in the world. With every response to every post anyone makes with whom you disagree with you start of by saying, clearly you haven't studied........blah blah. It seems like a lot of young liberals you are book smart, but lack real world expereince which makes it difficult for common sense to come into play with most of your arguments.

While you make good points here and there, your entire approach to everything is theory. You answered my question with the typical liberal false intelectual response. When your argument is proven false, you create a straw man by creating an exception to the rule, create a definition to supporrt that exception.

The fact is you and many other libs on this site constantly post that the south is full of racists and rednecks. Then when that is proven wrong by the election of and popularity of someone like Jindal or Rubio, you create exceptions.

Well ya the south is racist, but jindal has a little bit of money....and even though thsoe racist southern whites don't like him, they pretend to.

Liberals, espeically younger ones simply lack expereince living in the real world. The younger ones like aaron actually beleive the stereotypes tat they have been told to by the liberals who command them.

The fact is that inthe real world the claim that conservtives are racists is plain false. Anytime its proven otherwise, libs do what they do and create that phantom intelectual void to explainit away. In reality its liberals who constantly setup rules and laws which are based on skin color, it is libs who wish to give different treatment to people of different colors.

Its no different than the liberals who pat themselves on the back for giving homeless people new shopping carts to push around....from a liberals perspective that is actually a very noble and honorable thing to do. And they actually think they are doing them a service.

I think this is the reason as people age they tend to become more conservative. People often start out much more liberal and as the years pass they become more conservative. Real world expereince many times is in direct opposition to liberal theory. Over time as life happens and tosses you its various curve balls, you find that the liberalism you cling to doesn't quite mix with the demands of common sense.

Bottom line despite what any liberal tries to explain away is that racism is no more prominant from conservatives as it is from liberals.....no more prominant from whites than it is blacks.

By the liberals definitions of conservative racism, an indian like jindal or latino like rubio should not be this popular. Yet they are.

In the end liberal theory always gives way to common sense...for most people anyway. This is why such a small percentage of the population call themselves liberal...because once real life happens, liberalism is no longer a viable lifestyle choice...it only operates in theory.

Racism has become a page 1 playbook item for liberals every year. Myself for example have been called a racist more times than I can count on this site......though I have never written anything even remotely racist. Yet, because conservatives don't beleive g'ment handouts are the right away to address things like poverty the automated and immeidate response by liberals is that i must be a racist. When it is my view that by giving hand outs and creating dependency that you actually inhibit people of all colors from acheiving.

So does racism exist? yes, but it exists among all colors and all ideaologies. However, despite the liberals attempts to keep us divided by race....its a dying practice. Common sense tells us skin color does not dictate who you are as a person so a result, in the end liberalsim will once again be forced to give way to good ole common sense.

____________________

jmartin4s:

When Bobby Jindal first ran for governor in 2002 to Kathleen Blanco he lost most likely to due racism. Jindal was expected to beat Blanco but mny people said, "I'd rather vote for a democrat than an Indian." So yes Stillow, Bobby Jindal had to deal with racism. As far as I'm concerned Melacon should retire. Democrats shouldn't waist a penny in LA cause they won't win an election there where people's views are that backwards.

____________________

Field Marshal:

There is no doubt that some voted in the 2003 election out of racism but this was not why he lost. The most likely explanation for jindals loss was the attack ads run by the Dems that were clearly bigoted and prejudice. They used ads that targeted his catholic religion stating that Jindal thinks protestants are "heretical." Jindal failed to counter the ads preferring to take the high road.

Jmartin, your argument doesnt hold water since Jindal trounced his republican opponents in the primary. If the republican conservatives were not going to vote for him, why did he receive 33% of the first round vote, double what Blanco received. The next republican received 6%.

LA is still a very democratic conservative state. But they wont vote for the far left crazies that currently occupy the national democratic party, hence their move to the republican party in recent years.

____________________

obamalover:

@WilliamGray

Intolerance is OK as long as it is your religious beliefs. Interesting perspective. Sorry but that is ludicrous. There is a saying in constitutional law "Your right to throw a punch stops at the tip of my nose." Religions can be bigoted as much as they want but they can't codify their bigotry in American law.

OMG your are psychologist! OMG! I'm being sarcastic if you can't tell. I might have cared if psychology wasn't a pseudoscience. I know children who were raised in a gay household. Both children are straight (not that it matters), both are popular and smart, and the older one goes to University of Michigan where he is a pre-med. You have no statistics to back up your assertion just ignorance.

Moreover, I have a degree in a real science: Biology. I know someone who has cut up 100's of homosexual and heterosexual brains and found that well over 80% of homosexuals have the same brain morphology. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

@Stillow

I gave you a reason. The fact that he is a religious nut is his saving grace with them. And Robert Byrd is a social conservative. He has a 22% rating by the HRC and a 20% rating by the ACLU. We are talking about social issues, so bringing up Byrd makes no sense. He is only proving my point that social conservatives tend to be bigots.

Furthermore, most blacks and Hispanics are social conservatives and both groups are deeply religious. Which is why it didn't pass in California, as 70% of blacks voted for prop 8. And Maine is not a liberal state. Both their Senators are Republicans. Maine is slightly left of center.

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,
The definition of bigotry is:a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.

By that definition, you are a classic bigot. As are most on far left.

The word has become the same as racist due to the dilution by the nutjobs on far left. It has lost all meaning.

I for one, couldn't care less if someone called me racist or a bigot anymore even though my views are the majority. The far left has so overused the words that people simply shrug their shoulders to the notion now. I mean, now a professor at Harvard says if you call someone a "professor", you are really being racist. Its gone beyond pathetic.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

So your position is that I'm intolerant of intolerance? LOL. That is sort of a silly position to take. Not only is it silly but it is patently untrue. I am very tolerant of bigots like you. I think you should be able to spew your bigotry and hate as much as your cold little heart desires, and your first amendment rights should remain intact.

However, what makes you a bigot is you don't think homosexuals should have their equal protection rights. That is why you are an intolerant bigot.

And I'm not surprised at all you stopped caring that you are a bigot.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Gays do enjoy equal protection under the law in America. They have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as the straights.

For example, both gay and straight males have the exact same right to marry one straight or one gay woman. Exact same right.

Not an iota of discrimination.

____________________

obamalover:

@StatyPolly

That is an inherently ignorant argument to make, because for your point to be valid you would have to ignore the central quality of what it means to be a homosexual: you love someone of the same sex. The institution of marriage was created so people who love each other can create a partnership. A homosexual by definition cannot love someone of the opposite sex. You would be burdening them in a way you wouldn't be burdening a heterosexual by denying homosexuals the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equality, hence that is not equal protection.


Geez, I shouldn't have to write so much to state something so obvious.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Agreed Statypolly. And most states have civil unions which give them the exact same benefits as a married couple. But you're right, they have the same civil rights, and inherent rights.

OL,

That wasnt my position at all and just shows how slow you are on the uptake. Not surprising.

However, i am also very tolerant of bigots like you as well and you also should be allowed to spew your hate and bigotry as far as your tiny heart (and mind) desires.

But, as i said previously, the word bigot along with racist has been so overused and overapplied by the far left nutcases that it has lost all meaning, which is why i couldn't care less if you call me one. The use of these words has proliferated since liberals usually have no other retort to facts and logic and have to throw out ad hominim attacks.

____________________

jamesia:

I do think most of the less well-educated black people are socially conservative, but upon attaining education (through schooling or otherwise) about the vast majority of their icons (MLK Jr, for instance) they become more liberalized.

Anyway, these kinds of generalities are quickly disappearing. The youth of my generation (born in the 80's or later) are significantly liberal, regardless of race or gender. Upon attaining knowledge that many black civil rights leaders were pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-socialism (or even overtly communist), they'll trend leftward still.

For example, I'd wager that 100% of the people making anti-gay comments on this thread are over the age of 30. Now that children of hippie age people can enter politics (of which Obama is a direct example), combined with a very socially liberal youth (even among evangelicals), it's only a matter of time before even gay marriage is national.

When you see conservatives using the Supreme Court to ensure their views are not aired on TV (from the CA marriage trials), then you know they've lost the PR battle. Fear of stating unpopular opinions in a democracy is a sign of a losing opinion. Fact.

____________________

StatyPolly:

OL,

Love's got nothing to do with Law.

Are you consistent enough to support polygamy?

I'd like an honest answer from you..

____________________

Paul Panasiuk:

despite growing up in a white family, going to mostly white schools, and living in a more wealthy part of the city, I know more racist black people than white.

____________________

obamalover:

StatyPolly:

Religion has nothing to do with the law either in fact it is unconstitutional to mix the two, see establishment clause.

I support polygamy only if it is completely consensual.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Stillow, you're so awesome. What's great about your posts is that you rarely engage with what I write, and instead you launch into long tirades based on other issues. I have to admit I get some satisfaction with riling you up so much.

You also accuse me of setting up strawmen and stereotypes when you did so yourself in that tirade. I never knew so much about myself until you told me!

ie: "Liberals, espeically younger ones simply lack expereince living in the real world." A stereotype. What do you know about my life experience?

"Myself for example have been called a racist more times than I can count on this site......though I have never written anything even remotely racist. " A strawman. Who has called you this, specifically? You've repeatedly said skin color means nothing to you. Any regular reader here can attest to that, so it's certainly not something I would say.

I told you that racism goes deeper than dislike based on skin color. But you did not engage with that, instead going on about common sense and how young people need to learn it , when what you really mean is they need to grow to think like you. Albert Einstein said that common sense is nothing more than one's accumulated prejudices. An Italian or a Moroccan is going to have a different "common sense" than you. Mine is different from yours because I've had different experiences.

Your comments are usually nothing more than your own bias, and you often display a shallow understanding of various issues, like when you said there should be term limits for congressmen, an argument that anti-federalists made during the ratification debates. If you knew about our history you wouldn't have made that argument because you'd already know that it failed 220 years ago and the constitution's success since then proves the federalist argument's validity.

This isn't to say that I always make flawless arguments. Sometimes they are inconsistent and rooted too much in emotion (see I challenge my own bias from time to time). But if you make blatantly unfounded statements I'm going to call you out on them. I don't intend to belittle you, but rather to show you why I think you're incorrect. I apologize if it comes off as condescending. But you obviously have tried to belittle me and have gross stereotypes of anyone who is to the left of yourself.

____________________

Stillow:

OL sets up the typical liberal straw man that libs always do. He will call you a bigot all day long and slam conservatives all day long for being opposed to gay marriage.....but then he calls himself obamalover....and as we all know obama is on RECORD as opposing gay marriage. So he does what libs like aaron do, he sets up a fake exception and then gives a definition to that exception. He will tell you obama is lying about not supporting gay marriage....that way in his liberal mind he can justify supporting a bigot on one hand and slapping others with the other hand who feel the same way as Obama.

Thats the problem with liberals in general, they lack consistancy, honesty and intelectual capacity to see there own ideaology's imperfections. Its much easier for a lib like OL to call all conservatives racist or bigots....then he ignores thsoe same exact things in hiw own party. Notice the exception he setup for jindal............libs do the same thing in every argument...its without fail they do it. They create the straw man, then create there own defitinitions to support the straw man.

That is why those of us with common sense find it so damn hard to debate with them. Its tough to debate with someone who creates valid exceptions in there mind everytime you disprove there position.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - All I do is is expose the flawed liberal logic in all your arguments. You attempted to explain how racist conservatives in the south voted for jindal, cus there racism isn't actually tied to someones race. You did exactly what i said you did....you created an exception to the rule, which in turn creates a straw man which in turn I ripped to shreds. I could post on how your assumption that racists in the south do not necessarily tie there bigoted racist views to someones actual race, but I think most of the readers saw the absurditiy of your comments.

You and your fellow lefties are always very quick to slam conservatives, espeically those in the south for being racist, bigoted or any number of things, when you totally ignore those things on the left. The fact is racism is not a left right issue. The others are talking about gay rights....that issue is also not a left right issue. There are millions of religious liberals who oppose gay marriage, obama being one of them. There are liberal racists.....its a human thing.

Just as somewhites do not like people of color, there are people of color who do not like whites.

But my original question was replied to by you in the very fashion I mentioned. You created the exception, claiming white racists don't actually hate people based on race and that si why jindal enjoys such high popularity or others like rubio. Your liberal mind simply will not allow you to accept the fact that what I said is ture. That the huge majoirty of cons couldn't care less what color someone is, its about there beliefs and ideaologoy which determine if you have a favorable view of them. Jindal is a small g'ment advocate who talks about fiscal responsibility....

So you can create all the phantom strawmen you like...the readers can decide for themselves....and most people realize its difficult to debate with you on these types of things because you constantly move the goal posts, constantly creating exceptions to every rule when your argument is disproven. Just as you did in this case with Jindal.

Things like term limits is tangible with both sides have valid points that can be made....its very difficult to create frivilous arguments on that subject like you do with subjects like jindal.

____________________

Xenobion:

Jindal is an idiot that blew his chance for president with that state of the union speech. Good for him for rebuilding LA though despite his conservative brothers who let it crumble.

____________________

havoc:

Homosexuality is defined by a behavior choice. Society, based on collective morals (think Bible) makes laws to limit or restrict certain behaviors all the time.

To compare someones beliefs that homeosexual behavior is wrong to segregation is a strawman argument.

____________________

havoc:

jamesia:

You think that only undereducated people have conservitive beliefs? Why do most of the Welfare people vote Dem? They probably dont have the highest level of education amongst them.

If you think that the youth of Evangelicals are socialy liberal I think you are quite wrong.

"If your not Liberal at 20 you dont have a heart. If your not conservitive at 40 you dont have a brain."

HOW OLD ARE YOU?

____________________

havoc:

Aaron_in_TX:

You are wrong in your interpertation of Romans. He was refering to gentiles.

Jesus certainly spoke about sexual sin. What do you suppose he meant?


Hate the sin (behavior) love the sinner.

____________________

Ryan:

Since marriage is historically related to religion, my question would be why is the government regulating marriage at all? Let each church decide who they want to let marry whom and have the gov't issue civil unions to everyone.

____________________

obamalover:

@havoc

Actually our founding fathers spurned the Bible as you see it. Thomas Jefferson, who was a deist, rewrote the New Testament and took out any reference to the divinity of Jesus Christ (aka all his magic tricks) so he was just a normal man to Jefferson. Franklin was an atheist. Adams was a unitarian. Washington was a deist and refused to take communion when he accompanied his wife to church who herself took communion. Furthermore, the constitution was based on the principles of the Enlightenment not the bible.

And science has shown that gay brains are morphologically different from straight brains; it is not a choice. But since conservatives hate science I guess that doesn't mean much to you.

@Ryan

That would be a fine solution. Let the church be a bigoted as it wants and let the state administer equality. Except that solution is not politically feasible. It would never make its way through Congress.

____________________

Ryan:

@OL

The state can't administer equality until it stops using race as a factor in its decisions.

Also, as a neuroscientist, the brain differences and "gay gene" have never been replicated, which is not to say that it is environmental or genetic, but those studies are not exactly the end of the story, there is not close to a consensus on either side, and which side one is on is pretty much delineated by policital ideology, since the science is inconclusive.

____________________

Stillow:

For the love of God, can someone please tell obamalover how lame he looks calling anti gay marriage people bigots........while prasising obama who is also anti gay marriage.

Its that lack of consistancy I talked about with libs......only YOU are the bigot, people who OL likes who feel the same as you are not, they simply have circumstances to explain away there opposition to thing slike gay marriage.

____________________

Bigmike:

Interesting discussion started by a LA Senate poll. Vitter looks like he has it wrapped up.

Evan Bayh looks like the news of the day. Are the Dems conceding IN?

What does the Senate look like next Jan? I think my last count was about 51-49 for the Dems. Counting Lieberman. Poetic justice there.

____________________

obamalover:

@Ryan

Nobody is proposing a "gay gene." I don't believe in a gay gene myself, but it is congenital we know that.

And as a neuroscientist you clearly don't know what you are talking about with regard to this subject, because they have identified the stria terminalis as being important in gender identification (i.e. transgenders individuals) and they have identified the suprachiasmatic nucleus as being important in sexual orientation.

And what are your credentials, where did you get your degree and what institution are you associated with?

@Stillow

Obama is for gay marriage. He is just lying about his beliefs to get elected. Here is the evidence:
http://images.politico.com/global/blogs/marriagedocument.JPG

____________________

Stillow:

heheeheh, ahhhh man, you libs. Obama is just lying about it. Seriously OL, are you auditioning for an SNL skit or soemthing?

Ignore Obama's own words....really, he doesn't mean..........hahahahah. I did not have sexual relations with that woman! Really, I swear I didn't!

Is????????

Comedy is the best!

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

What words would you be ignoring? What he says while he is campaigning, or what he says when he is not campaigning? I tend to trust politicians more when they are not campaigning, but maybe you are one of those types to swallow all those campaign promises hook line and sinker.

____________________

StatyPolly:

BigMike,

Yes, another one Bayhtes the dust, haha. Looks like wacky Dan will be the next Sen from IN.

OL,

I give you points for consistency on polygamy. It is ludicrous, of course, to equate a marriage between a man and a woman, which historians and anthropologists alike regard as the key ingredient in human evolution, to a marriage between say 50 gay guys.

You say "Religion has nothing to do with the law either" yet you are not satisfied with equal rights civil union or domestic partnerships. I support civil unions and so do most people who oppose redefining of marriage.

____________________

Stillow:

OL - I know you do....your doing EXACTLY what libs alway do when there argument makes no sense. Your creating an exception in your mind, then giving that exception validity in your mind so you can in your opinion beleive what you beleive. You ignore Obama staing in front of tens of millions of people durign the debates that he is opposed to gay marriage. That is reality....as a lib you simply ignore it, push it aside, create your wn little fantasy make beleive world where Obama really means soemthing else........and that is what makes you happy.

Thats fine with me, really it is....you look foolish to everyone, but I support your right to make up these little exceptions if that is how you get thru the day.

Mabe when the weather guy says its cold outside, I will pretend its 100 degress so I can use my pol that day.

Whatever works for you OL, whatever works.

____________________

obamalover:

@StatyPolly

So you are going to force gays and lesbians to breed to keep the human race going? LOL! If anything there is an overpopulation of humans. And please show me where it shows a consensus among historians and anthropologists that having gays marry threaten the existence of the human species. (snickers) You probably won't because you are talking out of your tuchas.

Having separate institutions for different groups is against constitutional law. See Brown v. Board of education. That is why the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down civil unions, because it would treat gays like second class citizens.

And what is wrong with redefining marriage if the current conception of marriage is bigoted? It used to be widely accepted that someone's husband could also have concubines (sex slaves) like Abraham in your bible. Was that all right? of course not. Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't make it all right. That is just plain silly.

____________________

Ryan:

@ OL

I have a BS from U of Michigan, and a PhD from IU in Bloomington, where, I currently work, in both Neuroscience and Psychological and Brain Sciences.

Identifying an anatomical difference in an adult brain in no way provides evidence for "nature" or "nurture", since the brain develops through out early life, and to a much lesser extent, throughout your whole life. In particular, the SCN differences between gay and straight guys is thought to occur post-natally upto and through puberty moreso than pre-natally (at least it does in non-human animals, but you can't really do that experiment on humans).

____________________

Ryan:

OL:
Here is the final paragraph of the study that shows the SCN is larger in gay men than in straight men (Swaab & Hofman, Brain Research, 1990). Notice that he clearly states that this should not be taken as a causal relationship...

"An association was found, however, between sexual orientation in men and SCN size, from which the functional implications are
momentarily not clear. However, various observations in animals suggest that the SCN, apart from being the biological clock, may be involved in reproductive processes. The SCN is also activated around puberty a. In addition, lesions of the SCN area in the female rat attenuated positive feedback response of gonadotropic hormones to estrogens. The relationship between a large SCN and homosexuality is, of course, not necessarily a causal one. Animal experimental research has to reveal whether the SCN is causally implicated in sexual orientation, or whether SCN size and sexual preference are influenced by a common factor during development."

____________________

obamalover:

@Ryan

LOL. So you are proposing that gays are made gay by their environment? Almost every single study has shown that children raised in gay households are no more likely to be gay than those raised in straight households. Seems like you are pulling crap out of your tuchas

And they have done studies on estranged twins on monozygotic and dizogotic twins and found monozygotic twins to be significantly more likely to share sexual preference characteristics.

And there is a clear link between morphological differences in the brain and sexuality. It may not be causal but it is clear it is at least a by product of the biologic cause of homosexuality.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

staty are you for real? i think Jindal would be pretty ticked off that you just called him black, gay, and female. he is none of the those things the last time I checked.

____________________

Ryan:

Changes in biology of a given phenotype does not mean that the cause of this change is inherant. You can see this most famously in a study of london cab drivers, who, after being a cabbie for a few years develop large hypocami. Does this mean that it is biologically driven that they become cab drivers? Of course not. With a very few exceptions, like Hunnington's, phenotype expression is due to an interplay of gene's, gene expression, and environment. This is probably the case with homosexuality, though there are studies that point in both directions.

____________________

obamalover:

@Ryan

Whether or not the environment plays a role in developing a certain biologic state, it is biologic as you admitted in your post. And you can't ask a person to "choose" a different "lifestyle" in adulthood as brain plasticity is severely limited at that point.

____________________

Ryan:

Of course it has a biologic element, but it also has an environmental element. To say it has nothing to do with either one is just naive. As I said in my first comment about it:

..."which is not to say that it is environmental or genetic, but those studies are not exactly the end of the story, there is not close to a consensus on either side, and which side one is on is pretty much delineated by policital ideology, since the science is inconclusive."

So policies based on only "biology" or only "environment" are both uninformed.

____________________

obamalover:

@Ryan

You are saying an environment leads to a biologic condition. Ok even if that is the case, the fact remains it is not a choice.

____________________

Ryan:

The science is inconclusive on either side, for the trillionth time. There are very many different operational definitions of "environment", and this includes the choice argument. Again, I'm not saying it is or it isn't, I'm saying that there is not conclusive data for any etiology of homosexuality.

____________________

Stillow:

Being gay is not a choice. I don't choose to be heterosexual, its who I am. Someone does not choose to be homosexual, its who they are......that said, they should have the same rights as everyone else. This country gaurantees you life, liberty and the persuit of happiness....who am I to stand i nthe way of anothers strive to be happy?

You can oppose gay marriage on moral grounds and religious grounds, but in this country you cannot impose that on others. They shoudl be free to live the way they want so long as it does not harm anyone else.....and unless someone can show me how two men marrying harms anyone, then they shoudl be let alone to marry.

People like roberts, obama, palin, etc, etc who all oppose gay marriage have little legit standing todo so in my opinion.

____________________

obamalover:

@ Ryan

The science is about as close to conclusive as you are going to get at this point. It has been shown time and time again it is biologic. To say otherwise you would have to ignore mountains of evidence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

@Stillow
They are not the same at all. Obama wants to get rid of DOMA and DADT and the others don't. Moreover the others are for putting hate in the constitution and Obama isn't. Gays will have much more rights than they would have had under McCain/Palin. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

____________________

Ryan:

Forgive me, but I don't think the BBC, CNN, etc, are exactly a good source for science info. It is no where near to being conclusive. If you think they are a good source of science news, than there is no point discussing this with you.

____________________

Stillow:

OL - even when I agree with you you slam me. your hopeless when it come sto this issue....because you simply choose not to accept facts about obama...and when someone simply chooses not to accept facts, the debat eis pointless. Obama opposes gay marriage...get over it....yes, you are in love with a bigot......facts hurt. That is a matter of public record. Even during that whole carrie prejean thing, the WH aknowledged that obama remains opposed to gay marriage remember?

____________________

havoc:

Stillow:

I Disagree. A gay man may or may not be able to control there sexual desires. They certainly can control their actions. There are plenty of straight monogamous men. Dont tell me that they were born monogamous. Celibacy in clergy is the same.

People are not machines or evolved mokeys we do not need to follow through with every thought that are hormones put in our minds.

____________________

obamalover:

@Ryan

Here you go:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/5/2034

Furthermore, BBC cited a study in a peer reviewed scientific journal. It just contains information you don't like so you are ignoring it.

@Stillow

Lets take what you said is true. That Obama in his heart opposes gay marriage. Obama wants to get rid of DOMA and DADT and the others don't. Moreover the others are for putting hate in the constitution and Obama isn't. Gays will have much more rights than they would have had under McCain/Palin. And that is a fact whether Obama opposes gay marriage or not. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

____________________

obamalover:

@ havoc

A gay man can't force himself to love a woman. That is an inherent fallacy in your logic.

____________________

havoc:

OL:

Who said they had to?

____________________

obamalover:

@havoc

So you want to force gay people into celibacy?

____________________

Ryan:

OL:
Once again, I am not, I say again NOT, saying that there is nothing biological. I am saying that it is environmental AND biological. It is you who are ignoring studies by saying that it is for sure, 100% biological.

Again, as I have stated before, there are peer-reviewed studies that go in BOTH directions, and to ignore either of them and to base policy decisions on only one or the other is not good. I feel like there's an echo in here...

____________________

havoc:

OL

Id rather not force anyone to do anything. Like recognize sinfull behavior as perfectly exceptable. Or to teach it to 3rd graders.

But thats just me.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Democrats have gained ground in traditionally conservative states like AZ, CO, NC and VA but they have failed big time in Indiana and Louisiana. I sort of thought they could have capitalized on Katrina more than they did, and that was just another missed opportunity for Democrats.

Louisiana sounds less biblically religious than Alabama or Texas. They have casinos and you got the Mardi Gras scene in New Orleans. That may explain why they would be more tolerant of a senator like David Vitter with sexual misconduct.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

If Obama doesn't get rid of Dont ask don't tell this year, I assure you he will be a one-termer like Jimmy Carter. There is no reason he can't, especially after Dick Cheney even said the idea of changing he would be open too. Dick Cheney!!! Obama would have no excuse on this one. I think he has to do it this month, because right now I am beginning to think he isn't being affective on leadership.

____________________

obamalover:

@Ryan
It has been shown conclusively that over 80% of gay brains are morphologically different than straight brains. You are just ignoring the facts to fit your own twisted logic.

____________________

obamalover:

@ havoc

You are saying they should stop homosexual acts. I'm not really sure what you think the results are going to be other than them being forced into celibacy or be forced into unwanted marriages with women.

And I'm sure there are a lot of homosexuals who don't want you to push your heterosexual agenda on their 3rd graders.

"but that is just me"

No there are a lot of people like you. They are called bigots.

____________________

havoc:

OL:

Name calling is a sign of a losing argument.

Bigots like St. Paul, Jesus, Moses, every president that we have ever had including the one you love. Yep anyone who has moral values is a bigot.

____________________

havoc:

OL:

With out name calling answer this question.

Why is it ok for society to have laws that limit adult incest, prostitiution, poligamy, and adultery?

All of these activites are engaged in by people who would tell you they were just doing what they were compelled to do by there bodies (born that way).

If you take the emotion out of your position you are left with an argument that has to condone any consenual sex relationship as equal to that of God ordained marriage.

Its moral relativism. There is no absolute truth only what one sees as truth. You can have no lasting society like this.

____________________

havoc:

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death.

____________________

obamalover:

@havoc

Actually Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter now supports gay marriage. And Abraham Lincoln was gay. Obama has said in the past he supports gay marriage.

Is it name calling to call the KKK bigots? Of course not that is just silly. I'm just identifying what you are.

And you are proving my point that you guys want to create a theocracy like the Taliban.

____________________

havoc:

So Abe was Gay and Christians are like the Taliban and Pro marriage Americans are akin to the KKK. Your wisdom is enlightening.

I think you know your arguments are without logic or merit and so you just say any outlandish thing you can think of.


Try making a point without insults or getting all emotional about it.

____________________

obamalover:

@havoc

It is well known amongst historians that Lincoln was extremely distant with his wife and was having a relationship with the head of his security.

I didn't say Christians were like the Taliban. I said the Christian RIGHT is like the Taliban because they want to institute religious law.

____________________

obamalover:

@havoc

It is well known amongst historians that Lincoln was extremely distant with his wife and was having a relationship with the head of his security.

I didn't say Christians were like the Taliban. I said the Christian RIGHT is like the Taliban because they want to institute religious law.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR