TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Specter switches sides... Dems have 59, soon 60...
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss That is an even bigger misnomer... the party of "old white men"? Skin color and gender always seems to get brought up by Democrats.

-sigh-

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 -sigh-

How can you seriously say *sigh* when you paint with such a broad yet ignorant brush. It would be equally ignorant to say that your party is the party of naive, hyper-progressive minorities. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I'm conservative and since libertarians don't yet have enough of an impact to move things, I tend to align more with the republican party because my values (not all) tend to match up better with their governing philosophy. I'm 32. Do I sound like a crusty old white dude? Is Clarence Thomas a crusty old white dude? Crusty maybe.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss So, you're ok with federal judges who interpret the constitution by their own social-justice viewpoints overturning laws that the state votes on?

who cares if the state voted on it? The question is whether the law was in violation of a more supreme law: the constitution. With a term as vague as "equal protection" there necessarily will be a disagreement to the precise meaning. When a judge thinks it means equal protection for gays to get married, i don't view it as imposing his social viewpoints. Like i said, i personally don't care about gay marriage, but i think it falls within an equal protection clause, unless otherwise stated in the constitution. Since only the state can grant a marriage license, the state does not protect the rights of gays who wish to get married.

What if the state wouldn't enforce contracts entered into between gay people? what if the state wouldn't permit gays the right to vote? what if the state didn't allow gays to acquire drivers licenses? Would you agree that these measures would violate equal protection? Do you think state should prohibit gay people from those things?

How about in the early history of the US when black men weren't allowed to marry white women? Do you think that would violate equal protection? why is race a more protected classification than sexual preference? If you believe, as many do including myself, that sexual orientation is innate (after all, why would anyone voluntarily subject themself to the ridicule that goes with being gay), then why should gay people be prohibited from doing something because of a feature they can't control? The justification for protecting against racial discrimination is that race is an innate feature of a person. If sexual orientation is likewise innate, then why do we marginalize their rights?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I agree it's not realistic to call for deportation. As I said, there are many strategies on the table... I was just making the point that "send them all back" wasn't one of them, and amnesty shouldn't be either. This is the result of laws not being followed. The states with the biggest social program nets are going bankrupt... CA, NY... it's not coincidence. We can't sustain like this forever, and something has to be done. I can't help but be a little bitter about my personal situation man... it's a natural feeling. As someone who followed the legal process and subsequently emptying my bank account at the time, how do you think it makes me feel when I see people avoiding all of that and getting what they want, because politicians want votes? It's a hard pill to swallow.

then what's your solution? certainly, maintaining the status quo, having them here illegally without paying taxes, is not the solution. We need to give them incentive to pay taxes and fully contribute to the cost of maintaining society. Some form of amnesty is not only necessary, but it's the only way to move forward. We can bundle stricter border control while allowing those here to work towards becoming citizens, or at least legal resident aliens.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka How can you seriously say *sigh* when you paint with such a broad yet ignorant brush. It would be equally ignorant to say that your party is the party of naive, hyper-progressive minorities. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'm conservative and since libertarians don't yet have enough of an impact to move things, I tend to align more with the republican party because my values (not all) tend to match up better with their governing philosophy. I'm 32. Do I sound like a crusty old white dude? Is Clarence Thomas a crusty old white dude? Crusty maybe.

No, I'm trying to color within the lines and The17sss has a habit of making the broad strokes that don't follow the discussion's intended course. (Usually because it would ultimately lead to a reevaluation of beliefs.) My disdain was mostly directed at him.

I'm not so simple to actually believe the republicans are only made up of old white dudes. It seemed like the opposing side in this thread was trying to hash Specter's move one way or another. This is all apart of a broader issue with the state of the republican party. Call it self preservation for Specter or whatever, it doesn't matter. It wouldn't be necessary if republicans weren't in such a terrible state as a party.

Specter's move is only another thing in a series of events showing the dismantling of the republican party. Events like this will always come back to the core problem republicans are having, their reimagining of the party.

Snowe said the repubs have a with us or against us policy. The dynamics are changing, a with us or against us policy won't hold anymore. Senior McCain campaign strategist said repubs have to endorse an open-arms policy. (These are quoted in my earlier posts.) This is the core problem, everything is directly descended from this problem.

Unless republicans can open some doors they will be marginalized. They will become the conservative-South minority party of no.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=508890

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Because there is no real leadership at the forefront yet, the polling data is more of an idication of the public's recoil against the partisan president and Congress that claim to be unifiers.

quote:

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows the depth of the party's problems. Just 21 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans. That's the lowest since the fall of 1983, when just 19 percent identified themselves as Republicans. Party identification does fluctuate with events. But as a snapshot indicator, the latest figures highlight the impact of Obama's opening months on the Republican Party. From a high-water mark of 35 percent in the fall of 2003, Republicans have slid steadily to their present state of affairs. It's just not as cool to be a Republican as it once was. The Republicans have many demographic challenges as they plot their comeback. Obama has attracted strong support from young voters and Latinos -- two keys to the future for both parties and once part of the GOP's calculation for sustaining themselves in power. Suburban voters have moved toward the Democrats. Specter can see that problem acutely in the suburbs around his home in Philadelphia home. Obama is also holding a solid advantage among independents, the proxy measure for the center or swing portion of the electorate. Reihan Salam, co-author of "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save America," said this week that the danger for Republicans is to believe they now represent a vast, silent majority that is waiting to reassert itself. A louder voice from a smaller cadre of supporters is not the answer, he warned. That will just prevent Republicans from reassessing their old agenda, developing new ideas and once again learning to reach out broadly. The Post-ABC News poll points to the progress Republicans have not made since Obama was sworn in last January. The approval rating for congressional Republicans has slipped from 38 percent in February to 30 percent today. Congressional Democrats have seen their support drop too, but still remain 15 points higher than the Republicans. More discouraging for a party trying to pick itself up after two bad elections is the wide gulf in public trust between the president and congressional Republicans. Sixty percent of the country trusts Obama to make the right decisions for the country's future -- but just 21 percent trust Republicans in Congress. Despite their solid opposition to the president's economic and budgetary policies, Republicans in Congress have seen this trust quotient decline eight points since January. A CBS News-New York Times poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe Republicans have opposed those policies for political reasons, rather than because GOP lawmakers genuinely believe the policies are bad for the economy.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44...ml?hpid=topnews

Good riddance. He should take McCains punk ass with him.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 who cares if the state voted on it? The question is whether the law was in violation of a more supreme law: the constitution. With a term as vague as "equal protection" there necessarily will be a disagreement to the precise meaning. When a judge thinks it means equal protection for gays to get married, i don't view it as imposing his social viewpoints. Like i said, i personally don't care about gay marriage, but i think it falls within an equal protection clause, unless otherwise stated in the constitution. Since only the state can grant a marriage license, the state does not protect the rights of gays who wish to get married. What if the state wouldn't enforce contracts entered into between gay people? what if the state wouldn't permit gays the right to vote? what if the state didn't allow gays to acquire drivers licenses? Would you agree that these measures would violate equal protection? Do you think state should prohibit gay people from those things? How about in the early history of the US when black men weren't allowed to marry white women? Do you think that would violate equal protection? why is race a more protected classification than sexual preference? If you believe, as many do including myself, that sexual orientation is innate (after all, why would anyone voluntarily subject themself to the ridicule that goes with being gay), then why should gay people be prohibited from doing something because of a feature they can't control? The justification for protecting against racial discrimination is that race is an innate feature of a person. If sexual orientation is likewise innate, then why do we marginalize their rights? then what's your solution? certainly, maintaining the status quo, having them here illegally without paying taxes, is not the solution. We need to give them incentive to pay taxes and fully contribute to the cost of maintaining society. Some form of amnesty is not only necessary, but it's the only way to move forward. We can bundle stricter border control while allowing those here to work towards becoming citizens, or at least legal resident aliens.

If you keep going he might be forced to reevaluate his positions...scary stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis If you keep going he might be forced to reevaluate his positions...scary stuff.

everyone should be open to changing their positions. I'm open to be persuaded by anyone with respect to any position.

quote:

Originally posted by BARS-N-STARS Good riddance. He should take McCains punk ass with him.

You know, if you're just going to recycle Rush Limbaugh's comments, why don't you just register under that name?

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy You know, if you're just going to recycle Rush Limbaugh's comments, why don't you just register under that name?

I posted that at 11 and Rush didnt mention that untill later. Nice try.

Someone who can get the job done.

quote:

Originally posted by BARS-N-STARS I posted that at 11 and Rush didnt mention that untill later. Nice try.

Hi, Rush said that on 4/28. You commented on 4/29. Get your chronology right while you're on your knees, Luda.

Well its obvious you listen to rush more than I do.

quote:

Originally posted by BARS-N-STARS Well its obvious you listen to rush more than I do.

Not enough to be the guy spitting out Rush quotes without even realizing it.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 everyone should be open to changing their positions. I'm open to be persuaded by anyone with respect to any position.

Absolutely, and I think it's good for someone who has actually followed their positions (at least on this discussion) to a logical end conclusion such as yourself to debate someone who hasn't.

No amnesty or citizenship for illegals. Apply the law.

It's good to think about what that actually would mean here in reality.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.