PDA

View Full Version : Politics


Party256
August 3rd, 2013, 07:04 PM
Your opinion on the Republican party, and do you have any suggestions for the party.

Ajmichael
August 3rd, 2013, 07:16 PM
Yes, stop wasting billions of dollars on promotion during elections... Same goes for both to be honest...

Emerald Dream
August 3rd, 2013, 07:20 PM
This thread is probably more suited for here -

VT Daily Chronicle :arrow: Ramblings of the Wise

conniption
August 3rd, 2013, 07:22 PM
Yes, stop wasting billions of dollars on promotion during elections... Same goes for both to be honest...

Agreed. At times it seems as though they're too busy trying to outdo eachother that they're not getting as much done as they should.

Walter Powers
August 3rd, 2013, 07:33 PM
The Republican Party isn't perfect, but it is exponentially better then the Democrats. That's why I'm a tea party republican. The Democrats are accelerating the nation's car with a cliff of economic ruin in front, and the GOP would at least try to begin to hit the brake.

Bottom line is that we need another Ronald Reagan, and fast.

As for suggestions, I'd stay stick to your principals. Don't cave. It's getting to the point where this is all or nothing.

Also, appeal to younger voters. Go out and see a movies revert once and a while. Meet celebrities. Have them endorse you. Show the kids of America how working hard for a living and being responsible will make them happiest in the long run. That's what you have to do to retain and gain young voters.

Harry Smith
August 3rd, 2013, 07:38 PM
The Republican Party isn't perfect, but it is exponentially better then the Democrats. That's why I'm a tea party republican. The Democrats are accelerating the nation's car with a cliff of economic ruin in front, and the GOP would at least try to begin to hit the brake.

Bottom line is that we need another Ronald Reagan, and fast.

What you dislike the democrats? Who would of ever thought. Whilst Reagan was a good leader he still had some major marks on foreign policy during his reign, look at the Invasion of Grenada, he ordered the invasion of a commonwealth country because it was simply communist.

Look at Iran Costra as well, not only were did he approve the sale of US weapons to Iran he then used the money to fund anti-Democratic costras. You can spend your whole life looking for another Reagan, your not going to find one. It's a different ball game now.

Oh yes wait forgot about the billions of war debt the US gathered under a republican, forgot about gay Americans being denied their rights, forget innocence Muslims being tortured without trial.

When you have that much blood on your hands it's easy to forget

Walter Powers
August 3rd, 2013, 07:56 PM
What you dislike the democrats? Who would of ever thought. Whilst Reagan was a good leader he still had some major marks on foreign policy during his reign, look at the Invasion of Grenada, he ordered the invasion of a commonwealth country because it was simply communist.

Look at Iran Costra as well, not only were did he approve the sale of US weapons to Iran he then used the money to fund anti-Democratic costras. You can spend your whole life looking for another Reagan, your not going to find one. It's a different ball game now.

Oh yes wait forgot about the billions of war debt the US gathered under a republican, forgot about gay Americans being denied their rights, forget innocence Muslims being tortured without trial.

When you have that much blood on your hands it's easy to forget

All of the things you've mentioned Obama (a DEMOCRAT) has had done under his administration similar, or worse. You hate Iran Contra? Look at Fast and Furious. You hate to torturing of innocent Muslims? Obama wanted the ability to kill American muslims with drones without trial. And need I mention the IRS scandal? What about the fact three Americans died because Obama wouldn't admit there was a terrorist attack weeks before the election?

I really don't care about isolated incidents like this if a president can turn a recession into a boom and end a nuclear arms race which benefits every American. Reagan did that. The problem I have with Obama is that he hasn't come close to being that successful. And that's because his socialist policies DON'T WORK. That's why I dislike the Democrats.

I say we need another Reagan because he was such a great communicator. Unlike the Democrats, our worldview involves responsibility and hard work, but ultimately will bring a much larger reward. We need someone like RR to show people that.

Party256
August 3rd, 2013, 07:58 PM
Thanks for the input guys. I am a Republican, but I want to work toward solutions( infrastructure,energy, education). I m not crazy about spending millions of dollars on a campaign. I m also willing to listen to democrats when it comes to policy.

Harry Smith
August 3rd, 2013, 08:03 PM
All of the things you've mentioned Obama (a DEMOCRAT) has had done under his administration similar, or worse. You hate Iran Contra? Look at Fast and Furious. You hate to torturing of innocent Muslims? Obama wanted the ability to kill American muslims with drones without trial. And need I mention the IRS scandal? What about the fact three Americans died because Obama wouldn't admit there was a terrorist attack weeks before the election?

I really don't care about isolated incidents like this if a president can turn a recession into a boom and end a nuclear arms race which benefits every American. Reagan did that. The problem I have with Obama is that he hasn't come close to being that successful. And that's because his socialist policies DON'T WORK. That's why I dislike the Democrats.

I say we need another Reagan because he was such a great communicator. Unlike the Democrats, our worldview involves responsibility and hard work, but ultimately will bring a much larger reward. We need someone like RR to show people that.

Responsibility? Do republicans have the right to deny millions of gay Americans their fundamental rights?

Also please for the love of socialism don't call Obama a socialism.

Socialism requires the nationalization of all industries, that would mean Obama would buy the rail, water and power companies and hold them for the government. Obama isn't a socialist one bit.

Oh look there's a school massarce, nah just ignore it because I like having my AR-15 in case the government try and arrest me.

Kameraden
August 3rd, 2013, 08:30 PM
Don't argue with a republican -- they have their head so far up their bum that they practically come out the other side.

Laquifa
August 3rd, 2013, 09:23 PM
What you dislike the democrats? Who would of ever thought. Whilst Reagan was a good leader he still had some major marks on foreign policy during his reign, look at the Invasion of Grenada, he ordered the invasion of a commonwealth country because it was simply communist.

Look at Iran Costra as well, not only were did he approve the sale of US weapons to Iran he then used the money to fund anti-Democratic costras. You can spend your whole life looking for another Reagan, your not going to find one. It's a different ball game now.

Oh yes wait forgot about the billions of war debt the US gathered under a republican, forgot about gay Americans being denied their rights, forget innocence Muslims being tortured without trial.

When you have that much blood on your hands it's easy to forget

Responsibility? Do republicans have the right to deny millions of gay Americans their fundamental rights?

Also please for the love of socialism don't call Obama a socialism.

Socialism requires the nationalization of all industries, that would mean Obama would buy the rail, water and power companies and hold them for the government. Obama isn't a socialist one bit.

Oh look there's a school massarce, nah just ignore it because I like having my AR-15 in case the government try and arrest me.


Whoa. I can't even post anything better than this. Harry, you've hit the nail dead center on the head.

Walter Powers
August 3rd, 2013, 10:29 PM
Responsibility? Do republicans have the right to deny millions of gay Americans their fundamental rights?

Also please for the love of socialism don't call Obama a socialism.

Socialism requires the nationalization of all industries, that would mean Obama would buy the rail, water and power companies and hold them for the government. Obama isn't a socialist one bit.

Oh look there's a school massarce, nah just ignore it because I like having my AR-15 in case the government try and arrest me.

Discussions about the things you mentioned here could fill ten threads. But these things your mentioning are all distractions. THE major issues that face our country are economic and military. The Republicans understand why we are as rich as we are as a country, and understand that the number one job of the government is to protect the rights of the individual; not redistribute wealth and regulate. This understanding would help us get back on track. Think about it: There's no point in having a debate about gay marriage if nobody can afford to get married! I'm not a Republican because I don't want gays to have sex and I want AK 47s in my high school classrooms. I'm a Republican because I recognize the GOP as our last option to save the free world from economic and political dispair. I think a lot more people would join our cause if they recodnized the scale of the situation.

tovaris
August 4th, 2013, 02:29 AM
A have a sugestion
Republicans: V rt se kausnte.

Gigablue
August 4th, 2013, 09:00 AM
Discussions about the things you mentioned here could fill ten threads. But these things your mentioning are all distractions. THE major issues that face our country are economic and military.

The economy will always be irrelevant as long as human rights are not met. The most important goal of the government is to ensure basic rights for all.

The Republicans understand why we are as rich as we are as a country, and understand that the number one job of the government is to protect the rights of the individual; not redistribute wealth and regulate.

If the goal is to protect individual rights, why are the republicans taking them away. Everyone has the same human rights. You can't only protect the rights of heterosexual men.

Also, redistribution of wealth is necessary. Countries with a more even distribution tend to have a higher standard of living. The rich don't need to have millions upon millions. If you take some away, they're still rich. However, that small bit taken away can do wonders for helping the poor. If you help the poor, they can in turn help the rest of the country.

Lastly, regulation is necessary to ensure safety and stability. The job of the government is regulation. You can argue about the scope of the regulations, but you need some regulation to prevent chaos.

This understanding would help us get back on track. Think about it: There's no point in having a debate about gay marriage if nobody can afford to get married!

Firstly, marriage itself is quite cheap. Secondly, you could reverse the statement. There's no point in having the money to get married if the law won't let you.

I'm not a Republican because I don't want gays to have sex and I want AK 47s in my high school classrooms.

Regardless of what you want, by associating yourself with the party,you give your approval to those ideas as well.

I'm a Republican because I recognize the GOP as our last option to save the free world from economic and political despair. I think a lot more people would join our cause if they recognized the scale of the situation.

It's ironic that the party you think will save the free world is slowly taking away freedoms from minorities.

Southside
August 4th, 2013, 10:48 AM
Well I hate Republicans for a few reasons...

1. Blocking the bill to close Gitmo

2. Invading my homeland of Panama(George H.W. Bush)

3. Wasting billions on useless wars(Iraq)

4. Hurricane Katrina aftermath(George W. Bush)

5. Gun Laws

Only good Republicans in the history of the US were Reagan and Lincoln..

Walter Powers
August 5th, 2013, 11:43 PM
A have a sugestion
Republicans: V rt se kausnte.

May I ask what that means?

The economy will always be irrelevant as long as human rights are not met. The most important goal of the government is to ensure basic rights for all.



If the goal is to protect individual rights, why are the republicans taking them away. Everyone has the same human rights. You can't only protect the rights of heterosexual men.

Also, redistribution of wealth is necessary. Countries with a more even distribution tend to have a higher standard of living. The rich don't need to have millions upon millions. If you take some away, they're still rich. However, that small bit taken away can do wonders for helping the poor. If you help the poor, they can in turn help the rest of the country.

Lastly, regulation is necessary to ensure safety and stability. The job of the government is regulation. You can argue about the scope of the regulations, but you need some regulation to prevent chaos.



Firstly, marriage itself is quite cheap. Secondly, you could reverse the statement. There's no point in having the money to get married if the law won't let you.



Regardless of what you want, by associating yourself with the party,you give your approval to those ideas as well.



It's ironic that the party you think will save the free world is slowly taking away freedoms from minorities.

Let's begin here:

The economy will always be irrelevant as long as human rights are not met.

You can't give people there human rights if you don't have the money to enforce them. Our most fundamental right is "the pursuit of happiness." Whether that means having a good job, starting a small business and succeeding in it, or being with who you love varies from person to person. But the bottom line is that you can't do that if America has been taken over by the Chinese and the Russians because we can't afford the super powerful military we have today, or say if massive amounts of homosexuals are being beat up in the streets because there's an inadequate police force. That is why the economy should be number one. THERE ARE ZERO UNDEVELOPED (POOR) NATIONS WHOSE CITIZENS ENJOY MORE FREEDOM AND RIGHTS THEN AMERICANS. That should tell you something right there. Money is needed to protect human rights, that's why the economy should be priority #1.

DO YOU HONESTLY RANK GAY MARRIAGE AS A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THEN THE ECONOMY? Give me a break!

If the goal is to protect individual rights, why are the republicans taking them away. Everyone has the same human rights. You can't only protect the rights of heterosexual men.

I'm talking about things that we enjoy like the right to found a business, the right of freedom of religion, the right to have a fair trial, the right to speak your mind, the right to go on forums like VT! Is GAY MARRIAGE really worth all of that? That's why I'm a Republican. I see the Republicans stepping on the constitution a little, then I see Democrats tearing it to shreds. I choose the lesser of the two evils. In fact, even if I was gay, you can bet anything I'd still be a Republican. Yes, gay Republicans do exist, in fact I've recently talked with one on here via PM. Turns out we share the same frustrations about you people :p

Also, redistribution of wealth is necessary. Countries with a more even distribution tend to have a higher standard of living. The rich don't need to have millions upon millions. If you take some away, they're still rich. However, that small bit taken away can do wonders for helping the poor. If you help the poor, they can in turn help the rest of the country.

Countries with a more even distribution of wealth also tend to be very recent rising stars and have mountains of debt. America has survived almost 250 redistributing relatively little amounts of money during most of that time. If we want to last another 250, we should keep doing what has stood the test of time. You just wait, as much as I hate to say it, in another 5 or 10 years even Scandinavia's economy will be in decline.

Lastly, regulation is necessary to ensure safety and stability. The job of the government is regulation. You can argue about the scope of the regulations, but you need some regulation to prevent chaos.

If I wasn't clear I was saying that the federal governments main job isn't to regulate (when I say "the government", I mean Washington DC) as it stands the Enviremental Protection Agency has gone power crazy and become the Employment Prevention Agency. That power should be transferred to the states, that way rules can be tested on small scales before implication.

Are you aware of the whole Spotted Owl incident? Essentially, the regulators thought a certain kind of owl would go extinct because loggers were reducing it's habitat. So they restricted logging vastly around small towns. You had these bureaucrats in big cities essentially deciding the fate of small town American people. This one regulation killed hundreds of thousands of jobs and ruined many many small towns in the Pacific Northwest, including the town my mom grew up in. Decades later, we found out the reason the population were going down was because they were being hunted by another kind of owl, and not because of humans, but it was way to late. The economic damage was estimated to be in the tens or even hundreds of billions, all because of this ONE regulation simply because some idiot environmentalist "scientists" thought it would keep this ecologically unimportant bird from going extinct. That's government gone wild.

Regardless of what you want, by associating yourself with the party,you give your approval to those ideas as well.

What idiot told you that? Anybody who thinks that there aren't differences in belief within one party isn't very bright, considering the two major ones comprise like 50 million people a piece. I would hope anybody who thinks everyone within a party believes the same thing isn't voting, because they obviously don't have a clue what's going on... There's going to be differences in opinion within each party.

For example, Ron Paul, a Republican wants many drugs that are illegal to be legalized. He also supports legalization of prostitution, I believe. Does this mean all his allies in the GOP agree? HELL NO!

What do you describe yourself as? A very very very liberal Independent?

It's ironic that the party you think will save the free world is slowly taking away freedoms from minorities.

We are? Could you provide some evidence?

Last I checked we were the party trying to get minorities off the Democratic vote plantation!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-izs983KLIpA/T6RLUENiDhI/AAAAAAAACgw/vrmMbLtnyxA/s320/democrat+plantation.jpg

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 04:32 AM
5. Gun Laws


isn't it Obama that wants gun laws?

Harry Smith
August 6th, 2013, 04:50 AM
May I ask what that means?



Let's begin here:



You can't give people there human rights if you don't have the money to enforce them. Our most fundamental right is "the pursuit of happiness." Whether that means having a good job, starting a small business and succeeding in it, or being with who you love varies from person to person. But the bottom line is that you can't do that if America has been taken over by the Chinese and the Russians because we can't afford the super powerful military we have today, or say if massive amounts of homosexuals are being beat up in the streets because there's an inadequate police force. That is why the economy should be number one. THERE ARE ZERO UNDEVELOPED (POOR) NATIONS WHOSE CITIZENS ENJOY MORE FREEDOM AND RIGHTS THEN AMERICANS. That should tell you something right there. Money is needed to protect human rights, that's why the economy should be priority #1.

DO YOU HONESTLY RANK GAY MARRIAGE AS A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THEN THE ECONOMY? Give me a break!



I'm talking about things that we enjoy like the right to found a business, the right of freedom of religion, the right to have a fair trial, the right to speak your mind, the right to go on forums like VT! Is GAY MARRIAGE really worth all of that? That's why I'm a Republican. I see the Republicans stepping on the constitution a little, then I see Democrats tearing it to shreds. I choose the lesser of the two evils. In fact, even if I was gay, you can bet anything I'd still be a Republican. Yes, gay Republicans do exist, in fact I've recently talked with one on here via PM. Turns out we share the same frustrations about you people :p



Countries with a more even distribution of wealth also tend to be very recent rising stars and have mountains of debt. America has survived almost 250 redistributing relatively little amounts of money during most of that time. If we want to last another 250, we should keep doing what has stood the test of time. You just wait, as much as I hate to say it, in another 5 or 10 years even Scandinavia's economy will be in decline.



If I wasn't clear I was saying that the federal governments main job isn't to regulate (when I say "the government", I mean Washington DC) as it stands the Enviremental Protection Agency has gone power crazy and become the Employment Prevention Agency. That power should be transferred to the states, that way rules can be tested on small scales before implication.

Are you aware of the whole Spotted Owl incident? Essentially, the regulators thought a certain kind of owl would go extinct because loggers were reducing it's habitat. So they restricted logging vastly around small towns. You had these bureaucrats in big cities essentially deciding the fate of small town American people. This one regulation killed hundreds of thousands of jobs and ruined many many small towns in the Pacific Northwest, including the town my mom grew up in. Decades later, we found out the reason the population were going down was because they were being hunted by another kind of owl, and not because of humans, but it was way to late. The economic damage was estimated to be in the tens or even hundreds of billions, all because of this ONE regulation simply because some idiot environmentalist "scientists" thought it would keep this ecologically unimportant bird from going extinct. That's government gone wild.



What idiot told you that? Anybody who thinks that there aren't differences in belief within one party isn't very bright, considering the two major ones comprise like 50 million people a piece. I would hope anybody who think everyone within a party believes the same thing.. There's going to be differences in opinion.

For example, Ron Paul, a Republican wants many drugs that are illegal to be legalized. He also supports legalization of prostitution, I believe. Does this mean all his allies in the GOP agree? HELL NO!

What do you describe yourself as? A very very very liberal Independent?



We are? Could you provide some evidence?

Last I checked we were the party trying to get minorities off the Democratic vote plantation!

image (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-izs983KLIpA/T6RLUENiDhI/AAAAAAAACgw/vrmMbLtnyxA/s320/democrat+plantation.jpg)

Okay, deny me my fundamental right because of the economy, does this mean that in 10 years time if the economy picked up would you be supporting gay marriage? I expect not

It's easy for you to say that the economy is more important, your not the one who is unable to marry the person that they love. Gay marriage is the biggest issue for me, both my parents are still in work, we live in a nice house- the economy isn't an issue for me.

And yes the democrats were mainly southern based 150 years ago, have you been to that lovely hotel called watergate?

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 05:26 AM
if I was American, I would be republican

Harry Smith
August 6th, 2013, 05:46 AM
if I was American, I would be republican

So you'd support denying millions Americans the right to marriage? You'd support a first strike on iran? You'd support arming the Syrian rebels?

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 05:53 AM
So you'd support denying millions Americans the right to marriage? You'd support a first strike on iran? You'd support arming the Syrian rebels?

its the better party, in America its only out of the 2 parties so its the lesser if you know what I mean

Harry Smith
August 6th, 2013, 05:55 AM
its the better party, in America its only out of the 2 parties so its the lesser if you know what I mean

It's the better party? There are many other parties in america and each party has different factions. It's the worst of the two evils by far.

How can you support a party which has trampled over millions of Americans rights? Would you be happy to support that?

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 05:58 AM
It's the better party? There are many other parties in america and each party has different factions. It's the worst of the two evils by far.

How can you support a party which has trampled over millions of Americans rights? Would you be happy to support that?

and what was those? I herd there was a volcano once or something, they evacuated everyone and people was complaining thats against their rights but it actually saved them

Harry Smith
August 6th, 2013, 06:08 AM
and what was those? I herd there was a volcano once or something, they evacuated everyone and people was complaining thats against their rights but it actually saved them

I'm talking about the fact that only one republican in the whole of America at state or national level has supported gay marriage. They make our conservative party look very left wing

removeddddd
August 6th, 2013, 06:22 AM
even if the republicans do improve the economy, what then? segregate all gays? no thanks

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 06:24 AM
I'm talking about the fact that only one republican in the whole of America at state or national level has supported gay marriage. They make our conservative party look very left wing

true but I still would be republican because they support the core values of America and even though I would support gay marriage, its not something I feel passionate about, I wouldn't campaign for it

Harry Smith
August 6th, 2013, 06:43 AM
true but I still would be republican because they support the core values of America and even though I would support gay marriage, its not something I feel passionate about, I wouldn't campaign for it

Core values?This shows that it's just rhetoric.You know they support torturing innocent men? They support killing mentally disabled prisoners. How can you support that?

Would you be happy to put your name to a party with so much blood on it's hands

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 06:49 AM
Core values?This shows that it's just rhetoric.You know they support torturing innocent men? They support killing mentally disabled prisoners. How can you support that?

Would you be happy to put your name to a party with so much blood on it's hands

ill put it simply, Obama is fucking up the country, dividing America, Romney is the only alternative and he will be great for the economy and military, which is the most important sectors for America, he will encourage investment instead of taxing the rich to bankruptcy, this is needed for the econmy

Harry Smith
August 6th, 2013, 07:04 AM
ill put it simply, Obama is fucking up the country, dividing America, Romney is the only alternative and he will be great for the economy and military, which is the most important sectors for America, he will encourage investment instead of taxing the rich to bankruptcy, this is needed for the econmy

Romney lost mate! He's 's not coming back, everyone knows that! if anything someone like christie or Rubio is the GOP choice. Your pretty stupid if you think Romney is the alternative. We doesn't understand the military, he has no foreign policy experience and he fucked up when he came over here.

Obama has taxed the rich to bankruptcy.

But listen to logic- America needs more money, taxing creates money- if you lower taxes then you lower your income. The bush tax cuts showed that, and they didn't generate any wealth

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 07:12 AM
Romney lost mate! He's 's not coming back, everyone knows that! if anything someone like christie or Rubio is the GOP choice. Your pretty stupid if you think Romney is the alternative. We doesn't understand the military, he has no foreign policy experience and he fucked up when he came over here.

Obama has taxed the rich to bankruptcy.

But listen to logic- America needs more money, taxing creates money- if you lower taxes then you lower your income. The bush tax cuts showed that, and they didn't generate any wealth

but when taxes are to high, people invest in other countries, you need to encourage investment to create jobs and boost the economy

he did massively fuck up when he came over here but im sure he can work what to say to the right people.

Harry Smith
August 6th, 2013, 07:18 AM
but when taxes are to high, people invest in other countries, you need to encourage investment to create jobs and boost the economy

he did massively fuck up when he came over here but im sure he can work what to say to the right people.

That's not always true, look at the bush tax cuts. They didn't help generate job growth, in fact bush was the only president not to have double digit growth.

Also lower taxes mean you have less money to spend because if the growth doesn't happen then you have less money.

Romney's not coming back, it's not like the UK once you lose you don't tend to run again

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 07:22 AM
That's not always true, look at the bush tax cuts. They didn't help generate job growth, in fact bush was the only president not to have double digit growth.

Also lower taxes mean you have less money to spend because if the growth doesn't happen then you have less money.

Romney's not coming back, it's not like the UK once you lose you don't tend to run again

of course they will have to be timed world and encourage it yourself such as meeting the investors

the party will still be going though

Harry Smith
August 6th, 2013, 07:32 AM
of course they will have to be timed world and encourage it yourself such as meeting the investors

the party will still be going though

Encourage what? Timed world? Obama doesn't meet each person who wants to create a business in the US.

The party need to adapt because they're only getting the white middle aged vote, I suppose that happens when it's a party ran by rich men.

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 07:36 AM
Encourage what? Timed world? Obama doesn't meet each person who wants to create a business in the US.

The party need to adapt because they're only getting the white middle aged vote, I suppose that happens when it's a party ran by rich men.

it being run by a rich man is very good! and no only those like large car firms etc, remember when David Cameron meet the leaders of Nissan and theyre now making their next car(s) in britian!

Walter Powers
August 6th, 2013, 07:56 AM
Okay, deny me my fundamental right because of the economy, does this mean that in 10 years time if the economy picked up would you be supporting gay marriage? I expect not

It's easy for you to say that the economy is more important, your not the one who is unable to marry the person that they love. Gay marriage is the biggest issue for me, both my parents are still in work, we live in a nice house- the economy isn't an issue for me.

And yes the democrats were mainly southern based 150 years ago, have you been to that lovely hotel called watergate?


Harry, let me be clear: I'm neither for or against gay marriage. I think marriage should simply not be government recodnized, and then we wouldn't be having this debate. Like I said, just because you are part of a party does not mean you can know exactly what a person beliefs politically.

As for the economy being more important, which is more important to you: Being able to marry a man, or going to college? Being able to marry a man, or having a job? Being able to marry a man, or retiring before you die?

The economic benefits of marriage can't be worth all of that.

So you'd support denying millions Americans the right to marriage? You'd support a first strike on iran? You'd support arming the Syrian rebels?

Stop making one thread every thread. Jack said if he was American, he would be a Republican. No need to attack him. You don't see me and him doing that to you, and your a freaking SOCIALIST!


It's the better party? There are many other parties in america and each party has different factions. It's the worst of the two evils by far.

How can you support a party which has trampled over millions of Americans rights? Would you be happy to support that?

We freed the slaves when the Democrats wouldn't free them. We ended segregation when the democrats wouldn't end it! For Pete's sake, look at how Obama, a Democrat, is trampling on the Constitition! He's employing people who abuse the tax enforcement agency. He's killing Americans without trial. For Pete's sake, 3 Americans died so that he could go into the election without a terrorist attack on the books!

Encourage what? Timed world? Obama doesn't meet each person who wants to create a business in the US.

The party need to adapt because they're only getting the white middle aged vote, I suppose that happens when it's a party ran by rich men.

You are aware that almost all of the richest people in Congress are Democrats right?


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

Harry Smith
August 6th, 2013, 08:01 AM
Harry, let me be clear: I'm neither for or against gay marriage. I think marriage should simply not be government recodnized, and then we wouldn't be having this debate. Like I said, just because you are part of a party does not mean you can know exactly what a person beliefs politically.

As for the economy being more important, which is more important to you: Being able to marry a man, or going to college? Being able to marry a man, or having a job? Being able to marry a man, or retiring before you die?

The economic benefits of marriage can't be worth all of that.



Stop making one thread every thread. Jack said if he was American, he would be a Republican. No need to attack him. You don't see me and him doing that to you, and your a freaking SOCIALIST!

We freed the slaves when the Democrats wouldn't free them. We ended segregation when the democrats wouldn't end it! For Pete's sake, look at how Obama, a Democrat, is trampling on the Constitition! He's employing people who abuse the tax enforcement agency. He's killing Americans without trial. For Pete's sake, 3 Americans died so that he could go into the election without a terrorist attack on the books!

I'm not a socialist, if I was what's wrong that? Britain is founded on socialism, it's not my fault that the cold war propganda hasn't warn off yet.

I'm not a big fan of Obama, I just think that the republicans stand for much worse, I'd much rather have someone like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton. I believe in fact that Desegregation was passed by LBJ, and that Barry Goldwater who was the republicans candidate in '64 was opposed to civil rights.

If you don't want to have your views scrutinized then it's unwise to post on here isn't it?

The economy hasn't had a bad effect on me or my family, that's the thing about capitalism- it goes through growth and falls. I'm sure people said back in the 60's that civil rights should be ignored because of the bigger threats. Is it that bad that I want the government to treat me equally?

Walter Powers
August 6th, 2013, 08:19 AM
even if the republicans do improve the economy, what then? segregate all gays? no thanks

Why do you think Republucans are such indecent human beings?

If you read may arguments, I explain why the economy is much more important then gay marriage. And we aren't going to "segregate the gays". Have you been watching too much MSNBC?

Harry Smith
August 6th, 2013, 08:30 AM
Why do you think Republucans are such indecent human beings?

If you read may arguments, I explain why the economy is much more important then gay marriage. And we aren't going to "segregate the gays". Have you been watching too much MSNBC?

The economy is important but that doesn't stop you from passing legalization. In the UK (which yes is different) we've managed to pass gay marriage legalization, this didn't stop our economy or any debates about it, they discussed it in parliament for two days and had a vote.

One simple question- Do you think that gay people should have the same rights as straight people?

Gigablue
August 6th, 2013, 08:50 AM
You can't give people there human rights if you don't have the money to enforce them. Our most fundamental right is "the pursuit of happiness." Whether that means having a good job, starting a small business and succeeding in it, or being with who you love varies from person to person.

What about other basic human rights? Do you think that the pursuit of happiness is more important than your right to life?

But the bottom line is that you can't do that if America has been taken over by the Chinese and the Russians because we can't afford the super powerful military we have today, or say if massive amounts of homosexuals are being beat up in the streets because there's an inadequate police force. That is why the economy should be number one. THERE ARE ZERO UNDEVELOPED (POOR) NATIONS WHOSE CITIZENS ENJOY MORE FREEDOM AND RIGHTS THEN AMERICANS. That should tell you something right there. Money is needed to protect human rights, that's why the economy should be priority #1.

Economic growth and social progress to tend to go together. However, it would be better to focus on social change, and let it drive the economy. For example, if you half people get out of poverty, they will be able to re-enter the workforce and help the economy. First and foremost should be social issues, but you can fix social issues in such a way as to help the economy.

DO YOU HONESTLY RANK GAY MARRIAGE AS A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THEN THE ECONOMY? Give me a break!

Yes.

I'm talking about things that we enjoy like the right to found a business, the right of freedom of religion, the right to have a fair trial, the right to speak your mind, the right to go on forums like VT! Is GAY MARRIAGE really worth all of that? That's why I'm a Republican. I see the Republicans stepping on the constitution a little, then I see Democrats tearing it to shreds. I choose the lesser of the two evils. In fact, even if I was gay, you can bet anything I'd still be a Republican. Yes, gay Republicans do exist, in fact I've recently talked with one on here via PM. Turns out we share the same frustrations about you people :p

Why is it an either or? Can't you have all the rights you listed as well as same sex marriage?

Countries with a more even distribution of wealth also tend to be very recent rising stars and have mountains of debt. America has survived almost 250 redistributing relatively little amounts of money during most of that time. If we want to last another 250, we should keep doing what has stood the test of time. You just wait, as much as I hate to say it, in another 5 or 10 years even Scandinavia's economy will be in decline.

Why would Scandinavia be in decline? They seem just fine now. Also, I wouldn't call the US fine. You have massive inequality as a result of not adequately redistributing.

If I wasn't clear I was saying that the federal governments main job isn't to regulate (when I say "the government", I mean Washington DC) as it stands the Enviremental Protection Agency has gone power crazy and become the Employment Prevention Agency. That power should be transferred to the states, that way rules can be tested on small scales before implication.

Unlike you Americans, I have no issue with federal regulation. Local issues should be decided on a local basis, but anything with far reaching effects, such as human rights issues, environmental issues, etc, should be decided on a wider scale. If you have to hurt the economies of a few states to prevent environmental catastrophe, so be it.

Are you aware of the whole Spotted Owl incident? Essentially, the regulators thought a certain kind of owl would go extinct because loggers were reducing it's habitat. So they restricted logging vastly around small towns. You had these bureaucrats in big cities essentially deciding the fate of small town American people. This one regulation killed hundreds of thousands of jobs and ruined many many small towns in the Pacific Northwest, including the town my mom grew up in. Decades later, we found out the reason the population were going down was because they were being hunted by another kind of owl, and not because of humans, but it was way to late. The economic damage was estimated to be in the tens or even hundreds of billions, all because of this ONE regulation simply because some idiot environmentalist "scientists" thought it would keep this ecologically unimportant bird from going extinct. That's government gone wild.

That's not government gone wild, that's stupid government gone wild. In case I wasn't clear, we need regulation based on facts. In that case, whoever was advising the regulators was an idiot. I certainly don't think regulation as it stands today is perfect, but we still need it. We need to improve, not abolish regulation.

What idiot told you that? Anybody who thinks that there aren't differences in belief within one party isn't very bright, considering the two major ones comprise like 50 million people a piece. I would hope anybody who thinks everyone within a party believes the same thing isn't voting, because they obviously don't have a clue what's going on... There's going to be differences in opinion within each party.

For example, Ron Paul, a Republican wants many drugs that are illegal to be legalized. He also supports legalization of prostitution, I believe. Does this mean all his allies in the GOP agree? HELL NO!


There are differences, but if you associate with a party, it means you accept most of their stances on the major issues. If you associate with the republicans, what that tells me is you either don't want minorities to have the same rights as the majority, or you don't think it's important enough to stop supporting the party over.

What do you describe yourself as? A very very very liberal Independent?

I really don't like any of the American political parties. The party here in Canada that I like best is probably the Green Party.

We are? Could you provide some evidence?

Last I checked we were the party trying to get minorities off the Democratic vote plantation!

image (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-izs983KLIpA/T6RLUENiDhI/AAAAAAAACgw/vrmMbLtnyxA/s320/democrat+plantation.jpg)

I don't care about the state of politics that long ago, I care about what things are like today. What I see is that in the US, the republicans are trying to make abortion illegal again, thus taking away the rights of women, and are trying to keep same sex marriage illegal, taking away the rights of homosexuals. When a party is trying to oppress more than half the population, I have a big issue with it.

removeddddd
August 6th, 2013, 10:50 AM
Why do you think Republucans are such indecent human beings?


0PAJNntoRgA

NrzXLYA_e6E



Have you been watching too much MSNBC? I don't think I've ever watched MSNBC

tovaris
August 6th, 2013, 10:59 AM
May I ask what that means?

RL]

Yes you may, it means in literal translation: peck yourselfs in the as

removeddddd
August 6th, 2013, 11:10 AM
Yes you may, it means in literal translation: peck yourselfs in the as

why say it in another language?

Southside
August 6th, 2013, 11:14 AM
isn't it Obama that wants gun laws?


Its the Republicans that want military style assault rifles to be legal, you dont need a AK-47 or AR-15 to defend yourself. I just dont see why you'd need a assault rifle, you can easily kill a person with a shot from a 44 Magnum, Glock, 357. Magnum....Am I right?

Why would you want to be a Republican? You'd want to be apart of a party that caused thousands of deaths due to falsified informaiton(Iraq)? You'd want to be part of a party that wants to strike on Iran before any negociations or talks have began? You want to be part of a party that caused hundreds of deaths in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? I just dont see the appeal of the Republican party...

Only good Republican I see is Christie..

Walter Powers
August 6th, 2013, 11:20 AM
Its the Republicans that want military style assault rifles to be legal, you dont need a AK-47 or AR-15 to defend yourself. I just dont see why you'd need a assault rifle, you can easily kill a person with a shot from a 44 Magnum, Glock, 357. Magnum....Am I right?

Why would you want to be a Republican? You'd want to be apart of a party that caused thousands of deaths due to falsified informaiton(Iraq)? You'd want to be part of a party that wants to strike on Iran before any negociations or talks have began? You want to be part of a party that caused hundreds of deaths in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? I just dont see the appeal of the Republican party...

Only good Republican I see is Christie..

The Democrats voted for the war in Iraq, too, I believe.

Also, I'm not really sure what your talking about with the Katrina thing. Explain.

Southside
August 6th, 2013, 11:23 AM
The Democrats voted for the war in Iraq, too, I believe.

Also, I'm not really sure what your talking about with the Katrina thing. Explain.

Quite a bit of Democrats were against the Iraq war, one of which was a young senator Barack Obama.

Bush diverted millions of dollars that were meant to go to levee maintenance and flood control infrastructure to the Iraq War, is it OK to put a foreign war before your own citizens?

You never told me, did you support Iraq?

tovaris
August 6th, 2013, 11:41 AM
why say it in another language?

It sounds better and the meaning ia unchanged...
And google translate is alvais exesible.

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 11:49 AM
Its the Republicans that want military style assault rifles to be legal, you dont need a AK-47 or AR-15 to defend yourself. I just dont see why you'd need a assault rifle, you can easily kill a person with a shot from a 44 Magnum, Glock, 357. Magnum....Am I right?

Why would you want to be a Republican? You'd want to be apart of a party that caused thousands of deaths due to falsified informaiton(Iraq)? You'd want to be part of a party that wants to strike on Iran before any negociations or talks have began? You want to be part of a party that caused hundreds of deaths in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? I just dont see the appeal of the Republican party...

Only good Republican I see is Christie..

well coming from a country where even the police dont have guns, I dont feel qualified to debate American gun laws

I support the gun laws, sometimes you have to have the balls to stick to your beliefs and help people, the Iraq people was liberated from a dictatorship, the British Prime Minister said he would still have invaded to free the people

Southside
August 6th, 2013, 12:00 PM
well coming from a country where even the police dont have guns, I dont feel qualified to debate American gun laws

I support the gun laws, sometimes you have to have the balls to stick to your beliefs and help people, the Iraq people was liberated from a dictatorship, the British Prime Minister said he would still have invaded to free the people

We invaded on the premise to find "WMDs", last time I checked the only ones we found were a few mustard gas canisters that were buried in the desert.

100,000+ innocent civilians were killed by the coalition invasion of Iraq, thats giving them liberation? We put them through hell, do you know how many people are getting killed over there from daily car bomb attacks and milita shoot outs?

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 12:11 PM
We invaded on the premise to find "WMDs", last time I checked the only ones we found were a few mustard gas canisters that were buried in the desert.

100,000+ innocent civilians were killed by the coalition invasion of Iraq, thats giving them liberation? We put them through hell, do you know how many people are getting killed over there from daily car bomb attacks and milita shoot outs?

yes and we had the balls to do something! its not our fault the infomation was wrong!

do you know what it is like living under a dictatorship? please find out before you reply

www.georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html

www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/remembering-what-saddam-husseins-iraq-was-really-like/

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/7985/9c0j.jpg (http://img109.imageshack.us/i/9c0j.jpg/)

he was evil and remember, it was hes own people that killed him, not us!

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/518/6nzj.jpg (http://img593.imageshack.us/i/6nzj.jpg/)

trimm_tom
August 6th, 2013, 01:16 PM
that party has lost touch with the american people and needs to be disbanded and reestablished into what it was before it went against the will of the country

Laquifa
August 6th, 2013, 02:42 PM
Almost every major Republican comes off to me like an asshole, most specifically:

Speaker of the House John Boehner (I still think it should be pronounced "BONER")
Senator Mitch McConnell

and every other Republican that voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 37 times, wasting over $55,000,000 in taxpayer finds that could have been put to way better use than by a bunch of old men acting like 5-year-olds because they aren't getting their way.

Its the Republicans that want military style assault rifles to be legal, you dont need a AK-47 or AR-15 to defend yourself. I just dont see why you'd need a assault rifle, you can easily kill a person with a shot from a 44 Magnum, Glock, 357. Magnum....Am I right?

Why would you want to be a Republican? You'd want to be apart of a party that caused thousands of deaths due to falsified informaiton(Iraq)? You'd want to be part of a party that wants to strike on Iran before any negociations or talks have began? You want to be part of a party that caused hundreds of deaths in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? I just dont see the appeal of the Republican party...

Only good Republican I see is Christie..

I can agree with this, the only thing I don't like about Christie is that he blocked the Marriage Equality bill.

Stronk Serb
August 6th, 2013, 03:53 PM
All of the things you've mentioned Obama (a DEMOCRAT) has had done under his administration similar, or worse. You hate Iran Contra? Look at Fast and Furious. You hate to torturing of innocent Muslims? Obama wanted the ability to kill American muslims with drones without trial. And need I mention the IRS scandal? What about the fact three Americans died because Obama wouldn't admit there was a terrorist attack weeks before the election?

I really don't care about isolated incidents like this if a president can turn a recession into a boom and end a nuclear arms race which benefits every American. Reagan did that. The problem I have with Obama is that he hasn't come close to being that successful. And that's because his socialist policies DON'T WORK. That's why I dislike the Democrats.

I say we need another Reagan because he was such a great communicator. Unlike the Democrats, our worldview involves responsibility and hard work, but ultimately will bring a much larger reward. We need someone like RR to show people that.

Obama is no the best. But the Republicans are the worst,

Thanks for the input guys. I am a Republican, but I want to work toward solutions( infrastructure,energy, education). I m not crazy about spending millions of dollars on a campaign. I m also willing to listen to democrats when it comes to policy.

I am not pro-democrat, but what do you think about instating the universal healthcare system, gay marriage, cutting defense spending, stopping foreign interventions and focusing on domestic problems?

Don't argue with a republican -- they have their head so far up their bum that they practically come out the other side.

Mostly it is true. Many are against universal healthcare because it is a "large government invasion" or something.

Discussions about the things you mentioned here could fill ten threads. But these things your mentioning are all distractions. THE major issues that face our country are economic and military. The Republicans understand why we are as rich as we are as a country, and understand that the number one job of the government is to protect the rights of the individual; not redistribute wealth and regulate. This understanding would help us get back on track. Think about it: There's no point in having a debate about gay marriage if nobody can afford to get married! I'm not a Republican because I don't want gays to have sex and I want AK 47s in my high school classrooms. I'm a Republican because I recognize the GOP as our last option to save the free world from economic and political dispair. I think a lot more people would join our cause if they recodnized the scale of the situation.

Frankly, the best bet of stabilizing your economy is wealth redistribution or taxing the rich to Mars. Social problems will be solved, and more tax money will flow in. I just fail to see what makes non-NATO countries not free.

Harry, let me be clear: I'm neither for or against gay marriage. I think marriage should simply not be government recodnized, and then we wouldn't be having this debate. Like I said, just because you are part of a party does not mean you can know exactly what a person beliefs politically.

As for the economy being more important, which is more important to you: Being able to marry a man, or going to college? Being able to marry a man, or having a job? Being able to marry a man, or retiring before you die?

The economic benefits of marriage can't be worth all of that.



Stop making one thread every thread. Jack said if he was American, he would be a Republican. No need to attack him. You don't see me and him doing that to you, and your a freaking SOCIALIST!




We freed the slaves when the Democrats wouldn't free them. We ended segregation when the democrats wouldn't end it! For Pete's sake, look at how Obama, a Democrat, is trampling on the Constitition! He's employing people who abuse the tax enforcement agency. He's killing Americans without trial. For Pete's sake, 3 Americans died so that he could go into the election without a terrorist attack on the books!

Blame one man for the whole party/political doctrine. If we go by that logic, socialism is the worst because of Stalin. The Republican party broke national laws, and your constitution. Harry just sees some parts of socialism which can be implemented into the society to benefit anyone. Are you on that drug called Cold War Propaganda?

Why do you think Republucans are such indecent human beings?

If you read may arguments, I explain why the economy is much more important then gay marriage. And we aren't going to "segregate the gays". Have you been watching too much MSNBC?

Look what they have been doing.

Harry Smith
August 6th, 2013, 05:36 PM
yes and we had the balls to do something! its not our fault the infomation was wrong!

do you know what it is like living under a dictatorship? please find out before you reply

www.georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html

www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/remembering-what-saddam-husseins-iraq-was-really-like/

image (http://img109.imageshack.us/i/9c0j.jpg/)

he was evil and remember, it was hes own people that killed him, not us!

image (http://img593.imageshack.us/i/6nzj.jpg/)

How come the west hasn't been getting rid of every dictatorship, I believe the Queen had dinner with the King of Bahrain recently, a country that is a dictatorship and has terrible abuse of human rights.

The trial of Saddam was very sketchy indeed, it wasn't very fair if you have the judge changed half way through.

It's also are job to make sure that our intelligence is correct since we based our war on said intelligence

britishboy
August 6th, 2013, 05:40 PM
How come the west hasn't been getting rid of every dictatorship, I believe the Queen had dinner with the King of Bahrain recently, a country that is a dictatorship and has terrible abuse of human rights.

The trial of Saddam was very sketchy indeed, it wasn't very fair if you have the judge changed half way through.

It's also are job to make sure that our intelligence is correct since we based our war on said intelligence

the intelligence was a massive cock up, im not denying that and now things are avoided

unless you have the money and troops to invade them all hiding in you house, we cant:D if it was just the liberation, should we have invaded? no. that was just a bonus, we thought and believed they had nukes and done ssomething about it!


Frankly, the best bet of stabilizing your economy is wealth redistribution or taxing the rich to Mars. Social problems will be solved, and more tax money will flow in.

how?... when you sent the money to mars?...:rolleyes:

I just fail to see what makes non-NATO countries not free.

corruption? no freedom of speech/expression? hung if you insult the leaders? the list goes on and on, I cant say its with every non NATO country but well I cant think of any that are free


-please do not double post. -Emerald Dream

Stronk Serb
August 7th, 2013, 03:07 AM
how?... when you sent the money to mars?...:rolleyes:

corruption? no freedom of speech/expression? hung if you insult the leaders? the list goes on and on, I cant say its with every non NATO country but well I cant think of any that are free

In Serbia you have freedom of speech, Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, many European/Asian/African states also do.

Southside
August 7th, 2013, 03:26 AM
the intelligence was a massive cock up, im not denying that and now things are avoided

unless you have the money and troops to invade them all hiding in you house, we cant:D if it was just the liberation, should we have invaded? no. that was just a bonus, we thought and believed they had nukes and done ssomething about it!

So its OK just to invade a country on "beliefs" and "thoughts" in your opinion right?

I'll agree with you that Saddam was a tyrant, thats obvious, but I dont think we did much good by destroying tons of civilian infrastructure and killing 100,000+ innocent civilians..

britishboy
August 7th, 2013, 03:28 AM
So its OK just to invade a country on "beliefs" and "thoughts" in your opinion right?

when you believe a country has illegal nuclear warheads, yes its good we had the balls to do something and they was liberated which justifies it

Southside
August 7th, 2013, 03:40 AM
when you believe a country has illegal nuclear warheads, yes its good we had the balls to do something and they was liberated which justifies it

I dont know how we thought the Iraqi's had "illegal nuclear warheads" when Iraq's only nuclear reactor was destroyed in the 80s, how did we come up with that?

So 100,000+ innocent civilians killed is liberating?

britishboy
August 7th, 2013, 03:44 AM
I dont know how we thought the Iraqi's had "illegal nuclear warheads" when Iraq's only nuclear reactor was destroyed in the 80s, how did we come up with that?

So 100,000+ innocent civilians killed is liberating?

Americas liberation had far more deaths and you celibate it every year!;) and it was down to one of your spies, if America didn't insist on blowing everything up, less deaths would occur, if your soilders was in the British army they would be kicked out and arrested, thats the real problem

Harry Smith
August 7th, 2013, 06:20 AM
Americas liberation had far more deaths and you celibate it every year!;) and it was down to one of your spies, if America didn't insist on blowing everything up, less deaths would occur, if your soilders was in the British army they would be kicked out and arrested, thats the real problem

It didn't actually, the official dead and wounded count was 50,000.

Also the war of independence was carried out by Americans wanting america to be free, the Iraq war was carried out by a foreign army. They're both very very very different.

The British Army have just as much blood on their hands in regards to war crimes carried out by the army

EvanGr
August 7th, 2013, 03:07 PM
Well, even not being an American, I can say that the greek Republican Party(New Democracy) and the Democratic Party(Panhellenic Sosialst Movement), which now are a coalition under the conservative Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, who by the way is now in U.S.A., have completelely destroyed our economy. So as the greek parties, I beleve the american parties will do the same; slowly destroy U.S.A. Now, the two greek parties are governing Greece. Who knows, maybe some day we will say a coalition in U.S., but one thing's for sure; both of them are corrupt and destroy everything. So just don't vote them. Personally, I am a centrist, so my opinions are almost like the ones of the greek democrats(Panhellenic Sosialist Movement), but I don't support any of them and if I were an American, I wouldn't vote any of the major parties either.

Zelder
August 9th, 2013, 01:37 AM
The Republicans just need to learn that people don't like it when they try to restrict minority rights.

britishboy
August 9th, 2013, 05:27 AM
The Republicans just need to learn that people don't like it when they try to restrict minority rights.

ive herd nothing of them trying to restrict? they dont support gay marriage, thats it and the core values of America are more important

Laquifa
August 9th, 2013, 10:40 AM
ive herd nothing of them trying to restrict? they dont support gay marriage, thats it and the core values of America are more important

The War on Women (http://www.politicususa.com/proof-war-women-2), the War on Abortion (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3488965), the War on Contraception (http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/republican-war-birth-control-contraception), and the War on Voting Rights (http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/what-states-are-doing-to-restrict-voting-rights/). They don't respect anyone's rights unless they are a corporation or a rich white man that supports their party.

tovaris
August 9th, 2013, 05:01 PM
The War on Women (http://www.politicususa.com/proof-war-women-2), the War on Abortion (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3488965), the War on Contraception (http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/republican-war-birth-control-contraception), and the War on Voting Rights (http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/what-states-are-doing-to-restrict-voting-rights/). They don't respect anyone's rights unless they are a corporation or a rich white man that supports their party.

they started suporting very rich black man now... ;)

Walter Powers
August 9th, 2013, 07:33 PM
The War on Women (http://www.politicususa.com/proof-war-women-2), the War on Abortion (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3488965), the War on Contraception (http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/republican-war-birth-control-contraception), and the War on Voting Rights (http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/what-states-are-doing-to-restrict-voting-rights/). They don't respect anyone's rights unless they are a corporation or a rich white man that supports their party.

War on women? War on contraception? I don't think so! Sure, we declared war on abortion, but for many of us it's like declaring a war on murder.

As for voting rights, last I checked we were trying to implement procedures such as voter ID that will protect the itegrity of our elections, for some reason the Democrats oppose them. They're the ones declaring the war on voting rates! It's almost as though they don't feel they can win an election without cheating! They already have the media in bed with them, the least they can do is let us make the electoral procedure fair!

And I could say the same thing about the democrats, they don't support your rights unless you are a welfare bum.

Southside
August 9th, 2013, 08:32 PM
War on women? War on contraception? I don't think so! Sure, we declared war on abortion, but for many of us it's like declaring a war on murder.

As for voting rights, last I checked we were trying to implement procedures such as voter ID that will protect the itegrity of our elections, for some reason the Democrats oppose them. They're the ones declaring the war on voting rates! It's almost as though they don't feel they can win an election without cheating! They already have the media in bed with them, the least they can do is let us make the electoral procedure fair!

And I could say the same thing about the democrats, they don't support your rights unless you are a welfare bum.


Implying that every democrat is a welfare bum?

Walter Powers
August 9th, 2013, 08:37 PM
Implying that every democrat is a welfare bum?

Umm, NO! If you read our entire conversation, you would see that Jay said the GOP only looks out for the rights of rich white men. So if I'm implying every democrat is a welfare bum by what I just said, he's implying every Republican is an rich white men. Neither of which is true.

If your gonna make a comment like that, read the entire conversation please.

Southside
August 9th, 2013, 08:46 PM
Umm, NO! If you read our entire conversation, you would see that Jay said the GOP only looks out for the rights of rich white men. So if I'm implying every democrat is a welfare bum by what I just said, he's implying every Republican is an rich white men. Neither of which is true.

If your gonna make a comment like that, read the entire conversation please.

I did read the entire conversation sir, Jay is partially right in that statement.

The GOP just wants to protect the rich man, private corporations, the banks, defense industry. The whole Iraq & Afghanistan campaigns were to benefit these mercenary contractors such as Blackwater and Halliburton.I consider myself a independent, though I just cant seem to connect with any Republicans as a kid who is from a Latin American immigrant family that lives in the inner-city. A lot of those guys in the Republican party are big dollar CEOs and millionaires who have plenty of friends in the defense industry and in the corporations. As much as I don't like all of Obama's policies, I can relate to him a bit, he didn't have much when he grew up, and had to work to where he is now. While Mitt Romney was rich as soon as he was born..

That's one reason why Mitt Romney lost, the average American hates these big pocket CEOs who are partially to blame for the whole economic crisis. A lot of Latinos hate the Republican party for its laws against immigration, Blacks never really liked the Republicans, a lot of women are against the Republican party for its war against abortion. If you guys don't get a half way decent Republican such as Christie or Rubio, the GOP will have no chance in 2016.

Walter Powers
August 9th, 2013, 08:53 PM
I did read the entire conversation sir, Jay is partially right in that statement.

The GOP just wants to protect the rich man, private corporations, the banks, defense industry. The whole Iraq & Afghanistan campaigns were to benefit these mercenary contractors such as Blackwater and Halliburton.I consider myself a independent, though I just cant seem to connect with any Republicans as a kid who is from a Latin American immigrant family that lives in the inner-city. A lot of those guys in the Republican party are big dollar CEOs and millionaires who have plenty of friends in the defense industry and in the corporations. As much as I don't like all of Obama's policies, I can relate to him a bit, he didn't have much when he grew up, and had to work to where he is now. While Mitt Romney was rich as soon as he was born..

That's one reason why Mitt Romney lost, the average American hates these big pocket CEOs who are partially to blame for the whole economic crisis. A lot of Latinos hate the Republican party for its laws against immigration, Blacks never really liked the Republicans, a lot of women are against the Republican party for its war against abortion. If you guys don't get a half way decent Republican such as Christie or Rubio, the GOP will have no chance in 2016.

Okay I don't want to have a million debates going on in one thread, but this is just really absurd how you have the audacity to ask me whether I'm implying that democrats are only welfare bums, and then go on to tell me how the person who did pretty much the exact same thing about Republicans and rich white men is partially correct in their thinking, and yet I'm not somehow in mine.

Southside
August 9th, 2013, 08:55 PM
Okay I don't want to have a million debates going on in one thread, but this is just really absurd how you have the audacity to ask me whether I'm implying that democrats are only welfare bums, and then go on to tell me how the person who did pretty much the exact same thing about Republicans and rich white men is partially correct in their thinking, and yet I'm not somehow in mine.

Notice how in my previous reply I only said "the rich man, private corporations, the banks, defense industry". When did I say the "white man"?

Walter Powers
August 9th, 2013, 08:59 PM
Notice how in my previous reply I only said "the rich man, private corporations, the banks, defense industry". When did I say the "white man"?

You didn't Jay did.

Zelder
August 9th, 2013, 11:06 PM
ive herd nothing of them trying to restrict? they dont support gay marriage, thats it and the core values of America are more important

"The core values of America" that's code for tea bagger paradise. Gays and blacks would have to live in fear and people would walk around on the streets with AK-47s. It'd be anarchy!

Laquifa
August 9th, 2013, 11:22 PM
You didn't Jay did.

First off, keep my name out of your posts. I am not a source for you to cite to argue with anyone else, nor am I a source for you to take my quotes out of context and use the, to TRY to attack me. Secondly, if you took the time to speak to the people AGAINST the ID laws, you would know that while it does protect voter integrity, it makes it harder for the older African Americans to get their IDs because they either don't have transportation, don't have the proper identification, or are simply unable to go and register for an ID for any other reason.

Okay I don't want to have a million debates going on in one thread, but this is just really absurd how you have the audacity to ask me whether I'm implying that democrats are only welfare bums, and then go on to tell me how the person who did pretty much the exact same thing about Republicans and rich white men is partially correct in their thinking, and yet I'm not somehow in mine.

THIRD, I was NOT implying that ALL republicans (I did not capitalize it on purpose, so don't you even try to come at my spelling and grammar) were rich, white men. I SAID that the INTERESTS OF THE PARTY were in the INTERESTS of RICH, WHITE MEN. Women are leaving because they don't respect women's rights. Blacks are leaving because they don't respect African American's rights. Latinos are leaving because they don't respect Latino rights. LGBT people are leaving becuase they don't respect LGBT rights (which we shouldn't have to fight for in the first place, because they are RIGHTS). The GOP will DIE unless they get on the right side of things, and move a little more to the center. I don't care if you want an AR-15 in your house. You don't need it, nor enough ammo to start a small army to protect yourself. You don't need to regulate a uterus UNLESS YOU HAVE A UTERUS. You don't need to put restrictions on the LGBT community unless you ARE A MEMBER OF THE LGBT COMMUNITY. I am SICK and TIRED of hearing the same old attacks being used by the GOP that watching Fox News isn't even funny anymore. Unless you can formulate a "FAIR AND BALANCED" argument to come back with as to why I shouldn't get my friends to support the Democratic Party, I will continue to support my party, and I will NOT be swayed otherwise to a bunch of conservative, crazy, delusional, parasites that only care for themselves and couldn't give a DAMN about anyone else as long as their wallets stay fat and their pockets stay full. Don't quote me, I'm not interested in hearing your lies and hate spewed at me anymore. It has lost it's entertainment value.

CharlieHorse
August 9th, 2013, 11:26 PM
Politics is a clusterfuck that never works

Harry Smith
August 10th, 2013, 12:29 PM
I did read the entire conversation sir, Jay is partially right in that statement.

The GOP just wants to protect the rich man, private corporations, the banks, defense industry. The whole Iraq & Afghanistan campaigns were to benefit these mercenary contractors such as Blackwater and Halliburton.I consider myself a independent, though I just cant seem to connect with any Republicans as a kid who is from a Latin American immigrant family that lives in the inner-city. A lot of those guys in the Republican party are big dollar CEOs and millionaires who have plenty of friends in the defense industry and in the corporations. As much as I don't like all of Obama's policies, I can relate to him a bit, he didn't have much when he grew up, and had to work to where he is now. While Mitt Romney was rich as soon as he was born..

That's one reason why Mitt Romney lost, the average American hates these big pocket CEOs who are partially to blame for the whole economic crisis. A lot of Latinos hate the Republican party for its laws against immigration, Blacks never really liked the Republicans, a lot of women are against the Republican party for its war against abortion. If you guys don't get a half way decent Republican such as Christie or Rubio, the GOP will have no chance in 2016.

Hit's the nail on the head, the voting demographics from the 2012 election show that Romney not only failed to get votes from groups such as Blacks and gays but also the increasing Latino vote which has a massive impact on the electorate.

Eisenhower himself warned of the Military-Industry complex back in the 60's, these companies live off warfare

Umm, NO! If you read our entire conversation, you would see that Jay said the GOP only looks out for the rights of rich white men. So if I'm implying every democrat is a welfare bum by what I just said, he's implying every Republican is an rich white men. Neither of which is true.

If your gonna make a comment like that, read the entire conversation please.

You said that democrats only stand up for rights if your a welfare bum, I'd like to remind you that the democrat party has stood up for LGBT rights, so that comment is incorrect

Laquifa
August 10th, 2013, 12:35 PM
Hit's the nail on the head, the voting demographics from the 2012 election show that Romney not only failed to get votes from groups such as Blacks and gays but also the increasing Latino vote which has a massive impact on the electorate.

Eisenhower himself warned of the Military-Industry complex back in the 60's, these companies live off warfare



You said that democrats only stand up for rights if your a welfare bum, I'd like to remind you that the democrat party has stood up for LGBT rights, so that comment is incorrect

Harry, don't even argue with Walter anymore. It's pointless to argue with a brick wall.

Cygnus
August 10th, 2013, 05:45 PM
If republicans would vanquish their war-oriented attitude and their religious orientation they would be a much better party.

Harry Smith
August 10th, 2013, 05:48 PM
ive herd nothing of them trying to restrict? they dont support gay marriage, thats it and the core values of America are more important

That is restricting the rights of a minatory!

The core values of America? That's a by word for Religious values. The core values of American society is the idea that all men are created equal.

But what do you define as the core values of America?

The way I see it is that Republicans need to modernize and approach social issues. Look at the Rob Portman effect- nearly every one in America knows someone who is gay, it's not the 1970's anymore. People are okay with homosexuality now and the republican party need to show this my supporting gay marriage rather than becoming the Christian party

Walter Powers
August 10th, 2013, 06:30 PM
First off, keep my name out of your posts. I am not a source for you to cite to argue with anyone else, nor am I a source for you to take my quotes out of context and use the, to TRY to attack me. Secondly, if you took the time to speak to the people AGAINST the ID laws, you would know that while it does protect voter integrity, it makes it harder for the older African Americans to get their IDs because they either don't have transportation, don't have the proper identification, or are simply unable to go and register for an ID for any other reason.



THIRD, I was NOT implying that ALL republicans (I did not capitalize it on purpose, so don't you even try to come at my spelling and grammar) were rich, white men. I SAID that the INTERESTS OF THE PARTY were in the INTERESTS of RICH, WHITE MEN. Women are leaving because they don't respect women's rights. Blacks are leaving because they don't respect African American's rights. Latinos are leaving because they don't respect Latino rights. LGBT people are leaving becuase they don't respect LGBT rights (which we shouldn't have to fight for in the first place, because they are RIGHTS). The GOP will DIE unless they get on the right side of things, and move a little more to the center. I don't care if you want an AR-15 in your house. You don't need it, nor enough ammo to start a small army to protect yourself. You don't need to regulate a uterus UNLESS YOU HAVE A UTERUS. You don't need to put restrictions on the LGBT community unless you ARE A MEMBER OF THE LGBT COMMUNITY. I am SICK and TIRED of hearing the same old attacks being used by the GOP that watching Fox News isn't even funny anymore. Unless you can formulate a "FAIR AND BALANCED" argument to come back with as to why I shouldn't get my friends to support the Democratic Party, I will continue to support my party, and I will NOT be swayed otherwise to a bunch of conservative, crazy, delusional, parasites that only care for themselves and couldn't give a DAMN about anyone else as long as their wallets stay fat and their pockets stay full. Don't quote me, I'm not interested in hearing your lies and hate spewed at me anymore. It has lost it's entertainment value.

Sorting through your rant, those two places you quoted me I was talking to Sputhsidepro. As you point out, he was assuming that I though all Democrats were welfare bums.

So I don't want to waste my time here, do you want me to reply to this or do you want to make a reply regarding what I said to you?

Hit's the nail on the head, the voting demographics from the 2012 election show that Romney not only failed to get votes from groups such as Blacks and gays but also the increasing Latino vote which has a massive impact on the electorate.

Eisenhower himself warned of the Military-Industry complex back in the 60's, these companies live off warfare

May I point out the while we didn't get votes from Blacks, I'm pretty sure we got more votes then in 2012. Same thing with Latinos.



You said that democrats only stand up for rights if your a welfare bum, I'd like to remind you that the democrat party has stood up for LGBT rights, so that comment is incorrect

Jay was generalizing, so I countered with a generalization. He said "Republicans only care about your right if your a rich white man" and I said "I could say that democrats only care about your rights if you're a welfare bum. I was trying to point out the absurdity of his statement.

Harry, don't even argue with Walter anymore. It's pointless to argue with a brick wall.

You may not enjoy it, but both me and him like debating, even if we're pretty sure it won't get anywhere in terms of changing our viewpoints. Harry is like talking to a brick wall too.

That is restricting the rights of a minatory!

The core values of America? That's a by word for Religious values. The core values of American society is the idea that all men are created equal.

But what do you define as the core values of America?

The way I see it is that Republicans need to modernize and approach social issues. Look at the Rob Portman effect- nearly every one in America knows someone who is gay, it's not the 1970's anymore. People are okay with homosexuality now and the republican party need to show this my supporting gay marriage rather than becoming the Christian party

You are aware neither me nor Jack are religious, aren't you?

By the core values of America he means working for what you earn, having freedoms like speech and the right of freedom of religion, property rights, that type of thing. With the exception of really just a few issues, this is what the Republican Party stands for. Why do you lefties automatically associate "core values of America" with religion? If you think that the first country to grant freedom of religions core values are Christian or any religion for that matter, you're crazy.

And the Republican Party shouldn't support gay marriage. We should support taking marriage out of the governments business.

Laquifa
August 10th, 2013, 06:35 PM
Sorting through your rant, those two places you quoted me I was talking to Sputhsidepro. As you point out, he was assuming that I though all Democrats were welfare bums.

So I don't want to waste my time here, do you want me to reply to this or do you want to make a reply regarding what I said to you?



Jay was generalizing, so I countered with a generalization. He said "Republicans only care about your right if your a rich white man" and I said "I could say that democrats only care about your rights if you're a welfare bum. I was trying to point out the absurdity of his statement.



You may not enjoy it, but both me and him like debating, even if we're pretty sure it won't get anywhere in terms of changing our viewpoints. Harry is like talking to a brick wall too.



You are aware neither me nor Jack are religious, aren't you?

By the core values of America he means working for what you earn, having freedoms like speech and the right of freedom of religion, property rights, that type of thing. With the exception of really just a few issues, this is what the Republican Party stands for. Why do you lefties automatically associate "core values of America" with religion? If you think that the first country to grant freedom of religions core values are Christian or any religion for that matter, you're crazy.

And the Republican Party shouldn't support gay marriage. We should support taking marriage out of the governments business.

Walter, you just do NOT listen. I SAID I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANY REBUTTALS FROM YOU. Therefore, do NOT quote me, keep my name out of your posts, don't mention any of my posts, and MOVE ON. Do I need to say any of this in SIMPLE ENGLISH FOR YOU?!

Walter Powers
August 10th, 2013, 06:40 PM
Walter, you just do NOT listen. I SAID I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANY REBUTTALS FROM YOU. Therefore, do NOT quote me, keep my name out of your posts, don't mention any of my posts, and MOVE ON. Do I need to say any of this in SIMPLE ENGLISH FOR YOU?!

Okay you can give up if you want :p

Harry Smith
August 10th, 2013, 06:43 PM
Jay was generalizing, so I countered with a generalization. He said "Republicans only care about your right if your a rich white man" and I said "I could say that democrats only care about your rights if you're a welfare bum. I was trying to point out the absurdity of his statement.



You may not enjoy it, but both me and him like debating, even if we're pretty sure it won't get anywhere in terms of changing our viewpoints. Harry is like talking to a brick wall too.



You are aware neither me nor Jack are religious, aren't you?

By the core values of America he means working for what you earn, having freedoms like speech and the right of freedom of religion, property rights, that type of thing. With the exception of really just a few issues, this is what the Republican Party stands for. Why do you lefties automatically associate "core values of America" with religion? If you think that the first country to grant freedom of religions core values are Christian or any religion for that matter, you're crazy.

And the Republican Party shouldn't support gay marriage. We should support taking marriage out of the governments business.

I respect that view about marriage, I don't agree with it but I see the point that it has. The issue I have is that you have Republicans who support heterosexual marriage yet they don't support homosexual marriage. That's the issue, you either support marriage for all or marriage for none.

The 'core values/ traditional values' is often based on the nuclear family. The idea that the man goes out to work and the women stays at home and looks after the kids.

You've got republicans opposed to gay marriage on the basis of religion, you've got republicans opposed to abortion on the basis of religion, you've got republicans opposed to stem cell research based on religion. They oppose gay adoption on the basis of religion.

The republicans need to modernize if they want to be successful, they need to try and evolve on social issues

Laquifa
August 10th, 2013, 07:03 PM
Okay you can give up if you want :p

I'm trying my hardest to not turn my posts into an attack on you. Therefore, to not cause any drama between any other users, because I'm going to say it now: I don't like you. Therefore, I am being the bigger person instead of being an antagonistic brat trying to egg people on an entice them to do things they do not wish to do, I am going to be mature and no longer debate you, seeing how you blatantly disrespect the values and opinions of others. It's extremely hard to debate a person who views people that think differently from them as "you people", like we are lesser than you because we disagree. I'm not giving up, I'm respectfully closing the argument. I will no longer reply to you, and I would appreciate if you no longer speak to me. Anyone else, I will speak to all of you if spoken to.

saea97
August 10th, 2013, 08:59 PM
Despite Walt's best efforts to play it off as insignificant, there's no denying that the Republican Party is absolutely stacked with bigots. They seem determined to stomp on equal rights, and quite rightly that is a turnoff for the American public. Something major is needed for 2016.

Laquifa
August 10th, 2013, 09:08 PM
Despite Walt's best efforts to play it off as insignificant, there's no denying that the Republican Party is absolutely stacked with bigots. They seem determined to stomp on equal rights, and quite rightly that is a turnoff for the American public. Something major is needed for 2016.

This keeps my faith in humanity at a somewhat existent level.

Magical
August 10th, 2013, 09:54 PM
Okay you can give up if you want :p

Why are you trying so hard to be nasty?

Walter Powers
August 10th, 2013, 11:46 PM
I respect that view about marriage, I don't agree with it but I see the point that it has. The issue I have is that you have Republicans who support heterosexual marriage yet they don't support homosexual marriage. That's the issue, you either support marriage for all or marriage for none.

The 'core values/ traditional values' is often based on the nuclear family. The idea that the man goes out to work and the women stays at home and looks after the kids.

You've got republicans opposed to gay marriage on the basis of religion, you've got republicans opposed to abortion on the basis of religion, you've got republicans opposed to stem cell research based on religion. They oppose gay adoption on the basis of religion.

The republicans need to modernize if they want to be successful, they need to try and evolve on social issues

The issue I have is that you have Republicans who support heterosexual marriage yet they don't support homosexual marriage. That's the issue, you either support marriage for all or marriage for none.

I just don't place that issue ahead of the economy, which greatly affects everybody. I do agree that a lot of our party must evolve, problem is where dealing with a completely biased media who wi fire up a good segment of our base, distort things, and turn us all against each other. Republican politicians are under great pressure to maintain the "no" stance on gay marriage.

You say social "issues", plural. What other social issues should we change or stance on?

You've got republicans opposed to gay marriage on the basis of religion, you've got republicans opposed to abortion on the basis of religion, you've got republicans opposed to stem cell research based on religion. They oppose gay adoption on the basis of religion.

1) Many of us, including myself, are opposed to most abortions and that's backed by science.
2). Stem cell research? Isn't that like, for making your skin look nice? Who cares?
3.)Those of us oppose gay adoption oppose it on the basis that children are best raised by people of both genders so they can be exposed to both, not religion. I'm really not sure on that issue. Does the Bible say "Thou Shalt Not Let Gays Adopt"? As far as I'm aware it doesn't. So I don't see how it's based on religion.

The 'core values/ traditional values' is often based on the nuclear family. The idea that the man goes out to work and the women stays at home and looks after the kids

I live in a family like that. It works quite well, having my mom home to raise us so we could get more attention. I think that helped my brother and I grow up better. Without my mom to help me in elementary school home I probably would not even be on track to graduate high school, I was such a bad student back then. I'd be a wreck if it wasn't for my mom quitting her job. So I am very thankful for living in a nuclear type family. Why don't you like them?
I'm trying my hardest to not turn my posts into an attack on you. Therefore, to not cause any drama between any other users, because I'm going to say it now: I don't like you. Therefore, I am being the bigger person instead of being an antagonistic brat trying to egg people on an entice them to do things they do not wish to do, I am going to be mature and no longer debate you, seeing how you blatantly disrespect the values and opinions of others. It's extremely hard to debate a person who views people that think differently from them as "you people", like we are lesser than you because we disagree. I'm not giving up, I'm respectfully closing the argument. I will no longer reply to you, and I would appreciate if you no longer speak to me. Anyone else, I will speak to all of you if spoken to.

I don't like you

Hey, I don't like the commies on this site; I'll still debate them because I know they're viewpoints are crazy!

It's extremely hard to debate a person who views people that think differently from them as "you people", like we are lesser than you because we disagree

Sorry? You have people on here dropping f-bombs every post and your upset I say "you people"?

When you say something as crazy and bigoted as Republicans are only looking out for the rights of rich white men, my emotions tend to come out.

seeing how you blatantly disrespect the values and opinions of others.

I do? Could you please give me some real examples? Harry, is their anything I'm saying that you feel is "blatantly disrespecting" you?

I will no longer reply to you, and I would appreciate if you no longer speak to me. Anyone else, I will speak to all of you if spoken to.

Okay then. I guess I'll forever be wondering why you are so mad. I just want to debate; your the one who said Republicans were only looking out for rich white people!

Despite Walt's best efforts to play it off as insignificant, there's no denying that the Republican Party is absolutely stacked with bigots. They seem determined to stomp on equal rights, and quite rightly that is a turnoff for the American public. Something major is needed for 2016.

Well, first of all, we should be thinking about 2014. Congress is, in fact, more powerful then the President, so that election is very crucial also.

I'm not really sure where you think we're trying to stomp out equal rights? Is gay marriage the only example you can give? Or do you have others?

Why are you trying so hard to be nasty?

He gave me like a essay long rant; I feel my response was very very justified given the scale of his offensive.

Sugaree
August 10th, 2013, 11:51 PM
Walter, you just do NOT listen. I SAID I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANY REBUTTALS FROM YOU. Therefore, do NOT quote me, keep my name out of your posts, don't mention any of my posts, and MOVE ON. Do I need to say any of this in SIMPLE ENGLISH FOR YOU?!

Wow, you're uppity aren't you? Let him quote who he damn well pleases, you don't even have to reply to him if you don't want. Jesus Christ, if this is what this supposed debate forum is coming to, I'm not even going to bother.

Walter Powers
August 10th, 2013, 11:53 PM
Wow, you're uppity aren't you? Let him quote who he damn well pleases, you don't even have to reply to him if you don't want. Jesus Christ, if this is what this supposed debate forum is coming to, I'm not even going to bother.

He'll probably refuse to debate you also. Good call.

Stronk Serb
August 11th, 2013, 06:10 AM
I just don't place that issue ahead of the economy, which greatly affects everybody. I do agree that a lot of our party must evolve, problem is where dealing with a completely biased media who wi fire up a good segment of our base, distort things, and turn us all against each other. Republican politicians are under great pressure to maintain the "no" stance on gay marriage.

You say social "issues", plural. What other social issues should we change or stance on?

The fact that 100,000,000 million Americans cannot afford basic healthcare.

1) Many of us, including myself, are opposed to most abortions and that's backed by science.
2). Stem cell research? Isn't that like, for making your skin look nice? Who cares?
3.)Those of us oppose gay adoption oppose it on the basis that children are best raised by people of both genders so they can be exposed to both, not religion. I'm really not sure on that issue. Does the Bible say "Thou Shalt Not Let Gays Adopt"? As far as I'm aware it doesn't. So I don't see how it's based on religion.

1)So if a 14 year old girl has been raped, she will have to raise the child?
2)It is researching and applying human fetus cells in medicine.
3)No, why should a stable gay couple be denied the right to adopt, while an alcoholic aggressive couple should keep that same child and mistreat it?

I live in a family like that. It works quite well, having my mom home to raise us so we could get more attention. I think that helped my brother and I grow up better. Without my mom to help me in elementary school home I probably would not even be on track to graduate high school, I was such a bad student back then. I'd be a wreck if it wasn't for my mom quitting her job. So I am very thankful for living in a nuclear type family. Why don't you like them?

Live in whatever family you please.

Hey, I don't like the commies on this site; I'll still debate them because I know they're viewpoints are crazy!

So, I am crazy. Who are you to say what is crazy, are you some omnipotent being which knows everything so that you can say it is crazy.

Sorry? You have people on here dropping f-bombs every post and your upset I say "you people"?

When you say something as crazy and bigoted as Republicans are only looking out for the rights of rich white men, my emotions tend to come out.

They are caring for the higher middle-class people and rich people who form the majority of the Republican voters.

I do? Could you please give me some real examples? Harry, is their anything I'm saying that you feel is "blatantly disrespecting" you?

Comparing my viewpoints to Stalin's despite obvious differences.

Okay then. I guess I'll forever be wondering why you are so mad. I just want to debate; your the one who said Republicans were only looking out for rich white people!

They are caring for the rich people.

Well, first of all, we should be thinking about 2014. Congress is, in fact, more powerful then the President, so that election is very crucial also.

I'm not really sure where you think we're trying to stomp out equal rights? Is gay marriage the only example you can give? Or do you have others?

Conducting invasions, Guantanamo (the Congress did not pass the bill to close that shithole) to name a few.

Harry Smith
August 11th, 2013, 06:54 AM
I just don't place that issue ahead of the economy, which greatly affects everybody. I do agree that a lot of our party must evolve, problem is where dealing with a completely biased media who wi fire up a good segment of our base, distort things, and turn us all against each other. Republican politicians are under great pressure to maintain the "no" stance on gay marriage.

You say social "issues", plural. What other social issues should we change or stance on?

It's not a question of the economy or gay marriage, the British government managed to pass the gay marriage bill after two days of debate and vote, the government is capable on focusing on several things at once. We passed Gay marriage and we're still able to focus on rebuilding our government.

The whole abortion debate and gay adoption are the other main social issues but I'll discuss those below

1) Many of us, including myself, are opposed to most abortions and that's backed by science.
2). Stem cell research? Isn't that like, for making your skin look nice? Who cares?
3.)Those of us oppose gay adoption oppose it on the basis that children are best raised by people of both genders so they can be exposed to both, not religion. I'm really not sure on that issue. Does the Bible say "Thou Shalt Not Let Gays Adopt"? As far as I'm aware it doesn't. So I don't see how it's based on religion.

1) Roe vs wade pretty much sums up my view on abortion, the supreme court has ruled that it is in fact legal. If you claim science backs up your view then it would be that radiotherapy or ejaculation would be murder due to the fact that it is killing cells. A women has a right to choose, and it seems strange that you hate teenage pregnancies but you oppose abortion and possibly gay adoption so it limits their chose. If you outlaw abortion you'll go back to the days of backstreet abortion. It should also without doubt be used if the mother's life is at risk. That option should be there.

2) Stem cell research allows the use of stem cells which can in such change into any cell in your body. For example if you have diabetes you can use your own stem cells to grow a new pancreas which would in fact cure you. It would save millions of lives and it doesn't do a damn thing wrong

3) Many people are raised by one parent aren't they?


I live in a family like that. It works quite well, having my mom home to raise us so we could get more attention. I think that helped my brother and I grow up better. Without my mom to help me in elementary school home I probably would not even be on track to graduate high school, I was such a bad student back then. I'd be a wreck if it wasn't for my mom quitting her job. So I am very thankful for living in a nuclear type family. Why don't you like them?

Mainly because it largely disagrees with my lifestyle, I'm I'm living with a man when I'm older I'm not gong to have this nuclear family, I admit that it does work I'm not saying we should scrap it, I'm saying their are alternatives to it. I know many people who have been raised by parent and they've turned out no worse to me. I just dislike the idea that two men can't raise a child together


I do? Could you please give me some real examples? Harry, is their anything I'm saying that you feel is "blatantly disrespecting" you?

Not at all

Well, first of all, we should be thinking about 2014. Congress is, in fact, more powerful then the President, so that election is very crucial also.

I'm not really sure where you think we're trying to stomp out equal rights? Is gay marriage the only example you can give? Or do you have others?

I don't understand why your trivialize gay marriage, if I lived in America I wouldn't have the same rights under a republican government would I.

Gitmo- I believe that the right to a trial is one of the oldest laws that has governed the western world. You've got people tortued who haven't even be tried.

Also it could be argued that the US government is breaking the Geneva convention in the treatment of POW's because some of the people in GITMO both carry arms open and are part of a partisan movement with a leadership meaning they're entitled to rights as a POW

saea97
August 11th, 2013, 09:56 AM
Well, first of all, we should be thinking about 2014. Congress is, in fact, more powerful then the President, so that election is very crucial also.

True.



I'm not really sure where you think we're trying to stomp out equal rights? Is gay marriage the only example you can give? Or do you have others?



Do I need others? Already by opposing gay marriage, Republicans deny a right to a certain demographic. That's "stomping on equal rights" in itself.

As it happens, and as has been pointed out, most Republicans are also anti-choice with regard to abortion and claim they have scientific evidence for this (probably the same sort of "evidence" that leads a fair portion of the party to believe the Earth is 6000 years old...). To restrict a woman's control over her own uterus is literally to remove a right to choose from half the population.

But you've already heard these arguments and you don't give a damn, so what's the point?

britishboy
August 19th, 2013, 06:27 PM
True.



Do I need others? Already by opposing gay marriage, Republicans deny a right to a certain demographic. That's "stomping on equal rights" in itself.

As it happens, and as has been pointed out, most Republicans are also anti-choice with regard to abortion and claim they have scientific evidence for this (probably the same sort of "evidence" that leads a fair portion of the party to believe the Earth is 6000 years old...). To restrict a woman's control over her own uterus is literally to remove a right to choose from half the population.

But you've already heard these arguments and you don't give a damn, so what's the point?

what would you rather? gay marriage? or no money and the collapse of your country?

Gigablue
August 19th, 2013, 09:58 PM
1) Many of us, including myself, are opposed to most abortions and that's backed by science.

Really. I would argue that science would show that abortions are acceptable. Science can tell us about stages in foetal development, more specifically brain development, which can inform ethical decisions about abortion. Since fetuses can't feel pain until very late in the pregnancy (after the point of virtually all abortions), science shows the opposite of what you claim.

Either way, the doesn't relate very much to politics, so if you want to discuss science specifically with respect to abortion, it would probably belong in a new thread.

2). Stem cell research? Isn't that like, for making your skin look nice? Who cares?

This is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. Before you talk about something, at least google it. The potential applications of embryonic stem cells are enormous. They could help with treating cancer, heart disease, stroke, spinal injury, neurodegenerative diseases, arthritis, burns and diabetes to name only a few. However, without further research, we won't be able to use them safely and effectively. The republicans stance against stem cell research is delaying research that could save tens or hundreds of millions of lives.

3.)Those of us oppose gay adoption oppose it on the basis that children are best raised by people of both genders so they can be exposed to both, not religion. I'm really not sure on that issue. Does the Bible say "Thou Shalt Not Let Gays Adopt"? As far as I'm aware it doesn't. So I don't see how it's based on religion.

Unfortunately, you are simply wrong. All the well controlled, sufficiently large studies to date show that children of LGBT parents are at least as well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents, all other things being equal. They have no higher incidence of mental illness, and they perform as well as their peers in school. Some studies show that children raised by LGBT parents actually outperform their counterparts in many respects. The position that children need parents of opposite gender is untenable given the current evidence.

I live in a family like that. It works quite well, having my mom home to raise us so we could get more attention. I think that helped my brother and I grow up better. Without my mom to help me in elementary school home I probably would not even be on track to graduate high school, I was such a bad student back then. I'd be a wreck if it wasn't for my mom quitting her job. So I am very thankful for living in a nuclear type family. Why don't you like them?

Good for you, but your anecdote is irrelevant. We can't conclude anything about what's best for society based on a single anecdote. Unless you have any data to support you assertion, I see no reason to assume that a nuclear family is any better at raising children.

saea97
August 20th, 2013, 03:00 AM
what would you rather? gay marriage? or no money and the collapse of your country?

I'd rather have my rights, thanks; and believe it or not, a country can have both equal marriage and a solvent economy.

I don't expect you to understand because you have the right to marry the gender you're interested in. (And so do I, because I'm lucky enough not to live in the US) If the people don't have equal rights, then I don't give a damn about the economy.

britishboy
August 20th, 2013, 03:09 AM
I'd rather have my rights, thanks; and believe it or not, a country can have both equal marriage and a solvent economy.

I don't expect you to understand because you have the right to marry the gender you're interested in. (And so do I, because I'm lucky enough not to live in the US) If the people don't have equal rights, then I don't give a damn about the economy.

gay marriage hasnt passed yet in the UK? and in the US the best party (republican) doesn't support gay marriage so its a matter of economy and country or gay marriage

teen.jpg
August 20th, 2013, 03:12 AM
I hate politics. It's one of those things that drives people to hate and discrimination, even if they don't want to admit it.

britishboy
August 20th, 2013, 03:14 AM
I hate politics. It's one of those things that drives people to hate and discrimination, even if they don't want to admit it.

thats the more serious politics, no one hates people over the interest rate

teen.jpg
August 20th, 2013, 03:17 AM
thats the more serious politics, no one hates people over the interest rate

But this whole Gay Marriage topic that always surfaces turns us into animals. Some a lot worse then others. (not saying any names)

saea97
August 20th, 2013, 03:20 AM
gay marriage hasnt passed yet in the UK?

It has, I said that. The first marriages haven't actually taken place though.

in the US the best party (republican) doesn't support gay marriage so its a matter of economy and country or gay marriage

As was pointed out by Jean Poutine in Walt's other economics thread, Republican presidents have in the past been unable to deal with the national debt. Quote:

"With the exception of Eisenhower, all Republican presidents either held the national debt flat or raised it, and with the exception of Obama (who has to clean up Bush's mess and deal with the recession) and Roosevelt (who presided during WW2), all Democrat presidents had it lowered or stabilized."

So you'll forgive me if I don't support the Republicans; their bigoted views are sickening and their economic history is not confidence-inspiring.

As for "it's a matter of economy and country or gay marriage", that trivializes the issue. The issue is that a portion of the population do not have the same right (to marry who they love) that other people (who arbitrarily happen to be heterosexual) have.

Twilly F. Sniper
August 21st, 2013, 06:31 PM
Republicanism is a joke. The only thing I support from that is the right to bear arms.