Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

[Rover]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

I'd venture to say one glaring difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Repubs want everyone to have the same rights as laid out in the Constitution, while Democrats want more rights for certain classes of people. Affirmative Action and Title IX back in the 70's laid the groundwork for the perceptions of each party as they stand today.

That would be okay if it were true, but I'd go further and say that the GOP is not about limiting government, but rather giving those who's social policy they agree with the right to impose their will, through government imposed legislation, on those who disagree with them. Abortion, contraception, gay rights, etc.

For example, living here in Mass the state hasn't forced anybody into an unwanted same sex union. What does happen is all of the citizens, equally, have the lawful right to decide what union they'd like to engage in. That is truly treating everyone equal, and more to the spirit of your post. Oh, BTW, Mass is by and large Democratic in nature.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

That would be okay if it were true, but I'd go further and say that the GOP is not about limiting government, but rather giving those who's social policy they agree with the right to impose their will, through government imposed legislation, on those who disagree with them. Abortion, contraception, gay rights, etc.

For example, living here in Mass the state hasn't forced anybody into an unwanted same sex union. What does happen is all of the citizens, equally, have the lawful right to decide what union they'd like to engage in. That is truly treating everyone equal, and more to the spirit of your post. Oh, BTW, Mass is by and large Democratic in nature.

From a conservative standpoint, abortion is more an argument about equal rights for the unborn (as in not being offed in the womb).

Contraception isn't an issue. The issue is when school leaders start handing out condoms and BC pills to minors without parental consent.

And marriage isn't listed as a right anywhere in the Constitution. Sorry, try again.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

That would be okay if it were true, but I'd go further and say that the GOP is not about limiting government, but rather giving those who's social policy they agree with the right to impose their will, through government imposed legislation, on those who disagree with them. Abortion, contraception, gay rights, etc.

You're confusing Conservatives with Republicans.

and yes, I know there are "social" conservative who want their mandates

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

ok ok so they didn't "give" us slavery, but they defended it to the death.

But who is "they"? The 1860 election result looks eerily like the red state/ blue state divide of today. The party names have switched, but it's the same fight: country mouse vs city mouse.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

You're confusing Conservatives with Republicans.

and yes, I know there are "social" conservative who want their mandates

Don't confuse the poor boy more than he is already.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

But who is "they"? The 1860 election result looks eerily like the red state/ blue state divide of today. The party names have switched, but it's the same fight: country mouse vs city mouse.

You're really reaching.
Or, you're right which means the Civil War was George Bush's fault, it pitted the cities against the countryside rather than what we've all read about North and South, and Abe Lincoln was a liberal democrat who secretly infiltrated the formation of the Republican party but died before he could put his plans into action instituting a communist paradise.
no, you're reaching.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

But who is "they"? The 1860 election result looks eerily like the red state/ blue state divide of today. The party names have switched, but it's the same fight: country mouse vs city mouse.

I beg to differ. The Republicans are still in a very similar place on the political spectrum......it's the Democrats that leapfrogged the Repubs in the '60s/'70s and went to the far left from where they were. In doing so, they left some of their constituents on the other side of the spectrum, and in a two-party system they had no choice but to gravitate towards the Republican party......which, despite continued denouncments of far-right activist groups, is still painted with the same race-card toting brush by the media, Democrats and the left.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

From a conservative standpoint, abortion is more an argument about equal rights for the unborn (as in not being offed in the womb).

Contraception isn't an issue. The issue is when school leaders start handing out condoms and BC pills to minors without parental consent.

And marriage isn't listed as a right anywhere in the Constitution. Sorry, try again.

No need to try again. For conservatives, banning abortion is putting the fetus ABOVE the mother's rights. See the South Dakota law that even those citizens had the good sense to reject ( don't you hate it when people give examples ). Contraception is an issue when cons want to give pharmacists the right to deny birth control perscriptions. That's putting one person's rights over another based on their own views. Lastly, if the Constitution doesn't define marriage, why then do you support laws restricting it? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

I'd also site conservative backed laws against gays adopting, and an effort to ban them from becoming teachers.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

You're really reaching.
Or, you're right which means the Civil War was George Bush's fault, it pitted the cities against the countryside rather than what we've all read about North and South, and Abe Lincoln was a liberal democrat who secretly infiltrated the formation of the Republican party but died before he could put his plans into action instituting a communist paradise.
no, you're reaching.

Definitely reaching. I mean, we have the post-partisan, post-racial president now. No more ignoring the minority, no more playing the race card.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

I beg to differ. The Republicans are still in a very similar place on the political spectrum

I think it is a safe statement that there is broad (overwhelming) agreement among historians that this just isn't how the history of the parties has gone. Political scientists recognize 5 (or more) "systems" to describe the party alignments. Each system was dominated by different issues and did not have a very strong relationship to the prior alignment. The parties in the 1860's bear no relationship to today's -- as late as the 1920's there is still probably little or no relationship.

The coalitions of voters that grouped along those issue lines resemble today's (with the labels flip-flopped) in some ways: the Republican base was more urban, industrial and the "lenders" in the financial sector, the Democratic base was more rural, agricultural and "debtors."

I'm sure endless PhDs have been written to explain why the Great Flip-flop happened. The Democratic party during the New Deal was an unstable coalition between two mismatched, even adversarial interest groups, and eventually they would have been cleaved apart. The civil rights movement was what historically split them, but it was only a matter of time, and it didn't need to be about race at all.

If you want to see one difference, look at attitudes towards federalism. The Republicans were strongly federal -- strong enough to go to war to hold the union together. The Democrats were strongly confederal -- strong enough to claim to right to secede. Today, the party attitudes are exactly the opposite.

All institutions try to trace back to their Founders to claim additional legitimacy, but in this case neither the Republicans' claims to be the Party of Lincoln nor the Democrats' to be the Party of Jefferson hold any water.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

No need to try again. For conservatives, banning abortion is putting the fetus ABOVE the mother's rights. See the South Dakota law that even those citizens had the good sense to reject ( don't you hate it when people give examples ). Contraception is an issue when cons want to give pharmacists the right to deny birth control perscriptions. That's putting one person's rights over another based on their own views. Lastly, if the Constitution doesn't define marriage, why then do you support laws restricting it? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

I'd also site conservative backed laws against gays adopting, and an effort to ban them from becoming teachers.

Sorry, try again. The fetus isn't trying to kill the mother in the case of an abortion. With regards to pharmacists, they're not saying the person can't get BC pills.....they just can't get BC pills from them. Big difference.

I don't support laws based on restricting marriage. Never said I did. The government decided they wanted to issue marriage licenses to married couples. Married couples didn't go to the government and say, "Please create a law so we can get a certificate so that we can be married." The states have been deciding it (gay marriage), as it should be. But in the end, it's just another example of the government going outside of their jurisdiction and interfering in private matters. And when the federal government--as a voice of the people--endorses anything that the electorate is opposed to--morally or otherwise--it is not doing it's Constitutional duty.

As far as laws prohibiting gays from adopting and teaching, I don't agree with that type of legislation. What a person does in their own time shouldn't matter, and so long as an agenda doesn't accompany any qualified person--straight or gay--into the classroom, they should be allowed to teach.

Which is why I've always had big questions for the gay "rights" movement: Why is proclaiming your sexual preference anyone else's business? Why should we know ANYTHING about your sex life? Why should other people be forced to acknowledge and tolerate what you do behind closed doors? Seriously, the couple two doors down from me are swingers (or used to be). Fine. Great. Grand. Only reason I know is because I bartended at a swingers convention about 10 years ago and saw him there. I don't care that they are swingers, and when he stops by for a beer when the garage door is open and the Stanley Cup playoffs are on, he doesn't talk about his swinging sex life--and I don't talk about mine. Why not? BECAUSE IT'S NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. Yet, because someone proclaims to have an attraction to someone of the same sex (or prefers to dress in clothing of the opposite sex, or is attracted to both genders, or believes they are members of both genders, etc, etc, etc) it suddenly everyone has to know and be OK with it, and the behaviors associated with it, lest they be tagged as a bigot.

I'm hoping and praying that we as a society get back to valuing people based on their personal worth (not monetarily) and character rather than the amount of skin-colored, sexual-preference, minority-driven diversity they bring to the table. More importantly, I'm hoping that people start valuing themselves that way rather than putting themselves into a predetermined minority class and demanding acceptance without question of their character.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Rover and Kepler are delusional (again).

Their Lord is tied with Ron Paul.

...oh, and he thinks being a mighty military power is a burden.

This chump and his cronies are so underqualified, I'd take a substitution of a bakers dozen of crash test dummies at this point.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

No need to try again. For conservatives, banning abortion is putting the fetus ABOVE the mother's rights. See the South Dakota law that even those citizens had the good sense to reject ( don't you hate it when people give examples ). Contraception is an issue when cons want to give pharmacists the right to deny birth control perscriptions. That's putting one person's rights over another based on their own views. Lastly, if the Constitution doesn't define marriage, why then do you support laws restricting it? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

I'd also site conservative backed laws against gays adopting, and an effort to ban them from becoming teachers.

The debate over these issues is why they should be settled at the state level. If someone doesn't like it they have the option of going somewhere else. Unfortunately, we are in a place now where the Supreme Court and the Commerce Clause are used to dictate these things on a federal level.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

it pitted the cities against the countryside rather than what we've all read about North and South

geezer, the point is it was North vs South, which correlated very highly with demographic factors. Try these maps for a comparison of Major Cities, Manufacturing, Agriculture and Railroads.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

And when the federal government--as a voice of the people--endorses anything that the electorate is opposed to--morally or otherwise--it is not doing it's Constitutional duty.

This is dropthatpuck level stupidity. If the electorate decides to endorse segregation, it is not the duty of the country's leaders to comply. That's stark raving stupid. Similarly, if the the people want to launch a nuclear attack against a country, its also not the political leadership's duty to automatically go along. On the flip side, you also don't need a public referrendum every time a big issue comes up. The people can express their views every 2 (House) 4 (President) or 6 (Senate) years.

Regarding abortion, birth control or gay rights, what you seek to do is give one person the right to overrule another on these decisions. That's putting one group of people over another. You as a pharmacist do not have the right to impose your personal view over another persons in dispensing a legal product. To enact such a law is to adopt a preference. You as a person do not have the right to unilaterally ban a medical procedure which may be necessary to save a woman's life. To do so would be to put one person's views over another ones.

Regarding gay rights, I too think it should be kept out of the public realm. Problem is, one side is saying "treat us like everybody else" and the other side is saying "get back in the closet". Outing somebody and then passing specific laws to ban them from adopting, the service, teaching etc is again one ideology trying to use the govt to impose its will in a discriminatory fashion over another group. That's why conservatism in the modern sense is all BS.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

I think the point, as 5mn pointed out, is that he is a nobody that no one knows anything about, and yet still matches The One in popularity polls. It illustrates the idea being reported that most Americans would rather have a 4-pound blobfish holding the office right now than Obama.

Yes, but that's because the devil you don't know always sounds preferable in polls to the devil you do know. You can name stuff you dislike about Obama but nothing you dislike about the blobfish because all you've heard is the fish's name and that he's going against Obama (I'm not saying people here know nothing about Paul, but the average voter). I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet it's very rare that an unknown opponent gains or even holds even with the incumbent based on the more that people learn about the unknown.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Which is why I've always had big questions for the gay "rights" movement: Why is proclaiming your sexual preference anyone else's business? Why should we know ANYTHING about your sex life? Why should other people be forced to acknowledge and tolerate what you do behind closed doors? Seriously, the couple two doors down from me are swingers (or used to be). Fine. Great. Grand. Only reason I know is because I bartended at a swingers convention about 10 years ago and saw him there. I don't care that they are swingers, and when he stops by for a beer when the garage door is open and the Stanley Cup playoffs are on, he doesn't talk about his swinging sex life--and I don't talk about mine. Why not? BECAUSE IT'S NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. Yet, because someone proclaims to have an attraction to someone of the same sex (or prefers to dress in clothing of the opposite sex, or is attracted to both genders, or believes they are members of both genders, etc, etc, etc) it suddenly everyone has to know and be OK with it, and the behaviors associated with it, lest they be tagged as a bigot.

I don't think you're average gay/lesbian person really wants it to be anybody else's business either. Of all the gay/lesbian people I've known it's not like they introduce themselves to you that way or mention it every conversation. Now sure they don't remove all mention whatsoever of any partner they ever had, but then heterosexual people don't do that either, so I don't consider that making it everyone else's business as much as it is just normal conversation. Now, given the history of discrimination against such people, there may be a desire to just get that fact about themselves out there from the get-go, to cut to the chase in terms of people finding out and get in on the table, but very very few find it necessary to continue making a big deal of it. (And if anyone's want to counter with parades and such, I do not feel a minute fraction of the population represents the whole.)

This is dropthatpuck level stupidity. If the electorate decides to endorse segregation, it is not the duty of the country's leaders to comply.

It is if they pass a constitutional amendment doing so, however stupid that may be.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Yes, but that's because the devil you don't know always sounds preferable in polls to the devil you do know.

It's the difference between X vs Y and X vs not-X.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

Yes, but that's because the devil you don't know always sounds preferable in polls to the devil you do know. You can name stuff you dislike about Obama but nothing you dislike about the blobfish because all you've heard is the fish's name and that he's going against Obama (I'm not saying people here know nothing about Paul, but the average voter). I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet it's very rare that an unknown opponent gains or even holds even with the incumbent based on the more that people learn about the unknown.

Again about the likely voter screen (something some pollsters, this one for example) don't always tell you how they came up with it.

A fringe candidate doesn't tend to have high name recognition. Filter out the sample for only those who know about him and you get a lot of his or her supporters. This isn't a new tactic; it tends to get used a lot in primaries. The average person who's heard of Ron Paul probably either 1) lives in or near his Texas district, 2) lives in Kentucky where his son is running, 3) is a political junkie, or 4) one of his apostles (USCHO conservatives by another name ),

However fear not, as I'm fairly confident any GOP candidate in 2012 will draw 42% of the vote. Not much more than that, but at least that much.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange

geezer, the point is it was North vs South, which correlated very highly with demographic factors. Try these maps for a comparison of Major Cities, Manufacturing, Agriculture and Railroads.

I know, I was pulling your chain for the mousal figure of speech. Although the map of "major cities" is quite striking in contrast to today with yer Miamis, Atlantas and Houstons.
My real bone to pick (which you have also refuted, to your credit) is with the typical unthinking liberal assumption that every conservative is a "Deliverance" villian whose main goal is to bring back slavery. I'm conservative, and I think the only modern societal evil exceeding slavery in destructiveness is legal abortion.
And Lincoln had an awful lot in common with GW Bush, especially if you compare the coverage of opposition newspaper editors. If anything, he would be seen as too conservative to be elected today.