Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Laura Bush

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2010 1:08:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
... was on Larry King and admitted that she supports gay marriage, and in some cases is somewhat pro-choice ( http://www.mediaite.com... ). So great. Now you tell us. Just like Dick Cheney waited until he was out of office to be vocal in his support for gay marriage... which is great, considering his daughter is an out lesbian. Sigh. I wish politicians - especially Republicans - could be forthright. You shouldn't have to lie about your beliefs just to accommodate the close-minded social conservatives. Obama saying he's against gay marriage is obviously a joke; he's just trying not to shake things up. How dare you, Obama. We're supposed to care that having a black president is a big deal because blacks should enjoy the same rights as whites, but gays should face discrimination as the "new blacks?" Harumph. Point being - politicians are full of sh!t and I wish the Republicans would try to clean up some of their sh!ttiness so their party wouldn't be such a joke anymore (since, you know, I am in favor of small government). Only the fundamentalist crazies actually care about social issues. Get rid of em :p
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2010 1:30:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Do keep in mind the consequences of your decision:

Business Republicans try to join LP, get rejected for impurity probably and either way control no more than a quarter of the vote.

Social conservatives split off on their own or join Constitution or Reform or whatever, and control no more than a quarter of the vote.

Democrats win every election for the foreseeable future. We have a 1 party state.

Until they f*** things up so bad they force a realignment. Which is good, except the part about living through the ****ing up of things.. Are you prepared for that?

Business Republicans (the people you're making your appeal to in essence) are probably not.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2010 1:32:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That scenario would only happen if none of the democrats switched their party. There are plenty of people who are socially liberal and economically conservative. In fact, I think THAT would be the party to beat - not the democrats.
President of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2010 1:39:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/15/2010 1:08:52 PM, theLwerd wrote:
... was on Larry King and admitted that she supports gay marriage, and in some cases is somewhat pro-choice ( http://www.mediaite.com... ). So great. Now you tell us. Just like Dick Cheney waited until he was out of office to be vocal in his support for gay marriage... which is great, considering his daughter is an out lesbian. Sigh. I wish politicians - especially Republicans - could be forthright. You shouldn't have to lie about your beliefs just to accommodate the close-minded social conservatives. Obama saying he's against gay marriage is obviously a joke; he's just trying not to shake things up. How dare you, Obama. We're supposed to care that having a black president is a big deal because blacks should enjoy the same rights as whites, but gays should face discrimination as the "new blacks?" Harumph. Point being - politicians are full of sh!t and I wish the Republicans would try to clean up some of their sh!ttiness so their party wouldn't be such a joke anymore (since, you know, I am in favor of small government). Only the fundamentalist crazies actually care about social issues. Get rid of em :p

That is just so not true. Cheney has been a supporter of gay marriage, gay rights, and against DADT all during his time in office. Furthermore the Obama stance on gay marriage is far weaker to the gay cause than Cheney. When i voted for Scott Brown and supported him some of my gay friends asked me how i could reconcile his stance on gay marriage, and i simply said that he has the same stance as the president, how do they reconcile that?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2010 1:39:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/15/2010 1:32:28 PM, theLwerd wrote:
That scenario would only happen if none of the democrats switched their party. There are plenty of people who are socially liberal and economically conservative. In fact, I think THAT would be the party to beat - not the democrats.

Libertarians.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2010 1:41:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/15/2010 1:39:14 PM, innomen wrote:
That is just so not true. Cheney has been a supporter of gay marriage, gay rights, and against DADT all during his time in office.

No kidding. I said VOCAL about it.

Furthermore the Obama stance on gay marriage is far weaker to the gay cause than Cheney.

No kidding. I never said otherwise. In fact, I was complaining about it.

When i voted for Scott Brown and supported him some of my gay friends asked me how i could reconcile his stance on gay marriage, and i simply said that he has the same stance as the president, how do they reconcile that?

So you're saying Obama's stance on gay marriage is more conservative then you'd expect? Great, looks like we agree. Did you even read what I said?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2010 1:42:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/15/2010 1:39:49 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/15/2010 1:32:28 PM, theLwerd wrote:
That scenario would only happen if none of the democrats switched their party. There are plenty of people who are socially liberal and economically conservative. In fact, I think THAT would be the party to beat - not the democrats.

Libertarians.

No, libertarians believe in absolute minimal government and no taxes - not small government and some taxes.
President of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2010 1:42:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/15/2010 1:41:31 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/15/2010 1:39:14 PM, innomen wrote:
That is just so not true. Cheney has been a supporter of gay marriage, gay rights, and against DADT all during his time in office.

No kidding. I said VOCAL about it.

Furthermore the Obama stance on gay marriage is far weaker to the gay cause than Cheney.

No kidding. I never said otherwise. In fact, I was complaining about it.

When i voted for Scott Brown and supported him some of my gay friends asked me how i could reconcile his stance on gay marriage, and i simply said that he has the same stance as the president, how do they reconcile that?

So you're saying Obama's stance on gay marriage is more conservative then you'd expect? Great, looks like we agree. Did you even read what I said?

Is 60 Minutes vocal enough?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2010 1:44:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/15/2010 1:41:31 PM, theLwerd wrote:


So you're saying Obama's stance on gay marriage is more conservative then you'd expect? Great, looks like we agree. Did you even read what I said?

I did and was agreeing with that point, although it may not have come across that way in my post, they are all full of Sh*t.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2010 4:58:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/15/2010 1:32:28 PM, theLwerd wrote:
That scenario would only happen if none of the democrats switched their party.
No, it would happen if very few did, which is fairly accurate.

There are plenty of people who are socially liberal and economically conservative.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...
Not really, even though they found more of those than liberal conservatives, that's a generous estimate, because the VAST majority of people who say "I want a smaller government" will prove the contrary when asked to keep or get rid of specific programs. Not to mention the institutional bias. Even "Center-libertarian" combined with actual libertarians is probably no more than a 5 to 10 percent demographic once people find out what they are actually signing on to. (See also: "Get the government out of my Medicare!")

The proof is in the pudding, we have the party you named right now. It's not the party to beat. It's not even close.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2010 11:33:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/15/2010 4:58:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/15/2010 1:32:28 PM, theLwerd wrote:
That scenario would only happen if none of the democrats switched their party.
No, it would happen if very few did, which is fairly accurate.

There are plenty of people who are socially liberal and economically conservative.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...
Not really, even though they found more of those than liberal conservatives, that's a generous estimate, because the VAST majority of people who say "I want a smaller government" will prove the contrary when asked to keep or get rid of specific programs. Not to mention the institutional bias. Even "Center-libertarian" combined with actual libertarians is probably no more than a 5 to 10 percent demographic once people find out what they are actually signing on to. (See also: "Get the government out of my Medicare!")

The proof is in the pudding, we have the party you named right now. It's not the party to beat. It's not even close.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. You said, "the VAST majority of people who say 'I want a smaller government' will prove the contrary when asked to keep or get rid of specific programs." Can you cite/prove this? If not, I guess I have no reason to accept that.

Also, your link only seemingly validated my point. I said that a lot of people consider themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Your link agreed that 59% of people said that they would indeed describe themselves that way.

Fiscally conservative =/= libertarian economics. There are a lot of democrats who are for a much smaller government, but who are not ready to commit to completely laissez faire (such as myself, and most people I know). Before the 2 parties were so polarized, there were a lot of southern republicans who voted like democrats (fiscally) and northern democrats who voted like conservatives. The blue states tend to be wealthier states to boot; I know that in places like New York City, for example, there are a ton of rich people who would be all for fiscal conservatism though there is no way they would ever be backwards enough to be socially conservative (obviously, in a socially progressive place like NYC). I feel like some places in Califorinia would have the same perspective.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 12:00:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/15/2010 11:33:54 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/15/2010 4:58:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/15/2010 1:32:28 PM, theLwerd wrote:
That scenario would only happen if none of the democrats switched their party.
No, it would happen if very few did, which is fairly accurate.

There are plenty of people who are socially liberal and economically conservative.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...
Not really, even though they found more of those than liberal conservatives, that's a generous estimate, because the VAST majority of people who say "I want a smaller government" will prove the contrary when asked to keep or get rid of specific programs. Not to mention the institutional bias. Even "Center-libertarian" combined with actual libertarians is probably no more than a 5 to 10 percent demographic once people find out what they are actually signing on to. (See also: "Get the government out of my Medicare!")

The proof is in the pudding, we have the party you named right now. It's not the party to beat. It's not even close.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. You said, "the VAST majority of people who say 'I want a smaller government' will prove the contrary when asked to keep or get rid of specific programs." Can you cite/prove this? If not, I guess I have no reason to accept that.
http://caps.fool.com...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...

http://www.themonkeycage.org...


Also, your link only seemingly validated my point. I said that a lot of people consider themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Your link agreed that 59% of people said that they would indeed describe themselves that way.
I was going from the Gallup numbers, not the Cato-purchased numbers. :)


Fiscally conservative =/= libertarian economics
I was discussing "central-libertarian." In other words, fiscally conservative. You know, like center-left, as opposed to pinko commie :). Most people in the LP aren't "completely laissez faire" (how they manage to sign the oath I have no idea.)

.
I know that in places like New York City, for example, there are a ton of rich people who would be all for fiscal conservatism
Then why do they have one of the most interventionist states around? Rich people aren't nearly so attuned to their interests as you might think-- and the ones that are move to tax shelters.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 9:36:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Those links have polls with titles like this: Poll - Americans want to cut government spending but don't want to give up their government checks. The thing is, not all democrats are receiving government checks. Plus, wanting a smaller fiscal government doesn't only mean cutting govt. programs; it could mean cutting a lot of pork spending in general. For instance, I would advocate cutting spending for the military; I would advocate to stop spending on the border fence; I would advocate less State jobs; I would advocate to repeal drug laws eliminating like 80% of the budget for the prison system, etc. So as you can see, there are a bunch of other ways to be more fiscally conservative without necessarily eliminating social programs. And, from personal experience, I can say that most people I know are pretty economically conservative but socially liberal - especially in this economy. Most people accept that being socially progressive will come with time; the common sentiment is that "one day gays will be equal," for instance, just as the sentiment was similar for blacks once upon a time.

A study by the Tarrance Group for the Republican organization GOPAC:

"While 69 percent of respondents described themselves as conservatives on fiscal issues, only 53 percent said they were conservative on social issues... While conservative pundits have talked a lot over the past year about Gallup's findings throughout 2009 that conservatives outnumbered both moderates and liberals, suggesting a slight shift to the right among Americans. The GOPAC study shows us that lots more Americans think of themselves as fiscal conservatives than as social conservatives." Eh, when they asked people, "Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?" 59 percent said yes.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...

Now, ironically, there was an article in The New York Times about this very issue like a week ago lol. And the author actually somewhat agreed with you; he thinks most people are both more fiscally and socially conservative. But again, I'm not saying that conservatism isn't in the majority -- I'm saying there are in fact a large number of people whose views are ignored or misrepresented: moderates, if you will. And I think a little party division (i.e. separating social conservatives from fiscal conservatives, etc.) could be beneficial.
President of DDO
lastrequest691
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 9:42:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am sure George W. Bush did not like what Laura told the news.

George Bush- "Honey! Why did you tell the news that you support gay marriage ?"
Laura- "Don't worry it is a politics thing."
George Bush- "Wow, I understand. You still got it. Come here........."

Censored
"That song was absolutely waste of talent; you sounded like a wounded animal and who told you to play the guitar by yourself." Simon Cowell
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 9:45:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 9:42:01 AM, lastrequest691 wrote:
I am sure George W. Bush did not like what Laura told the news.

George Bush- "Honey! Why did you tell the news that you support gay marriage ?"
Laura- "Don't worry it is a politics thing."
George Bush- "Wow, I understand. You still got it. Come here........."

Censored

++1
'sup DDO -- july 2013