19 replies to this topic

[TakeAStepBack]

[Julius]

Republicans have those wonderful open-minded evangelicals on their team?

[TakeAStepBack]

OK...it's hardly a noteworthy difference, but granted, the people of the nation are divided into these two parties based on social implications.....

[TakeAStepBack]

Ser. I'm haivng a hard time finding any REAL difference. The only thing I see different are social issues.

Abortion, healthcare, etc....

Both parties love war.
Neither party can balance the budget
Both like to give big tax breaks to the rich
Both make gobs of money from lobbyist support from big corp.


What else?

[deadheadskier]

hardly noteworthy?

it's a big difference for me. A Republican could have a surefire way to get the country on the right track for financial prosperity and I would never vote for them due to how many people on that side of the table are against gay marriage.

[TakeAStepBack]

So, over economics, foreign policy and industry, you are more worried about the right for a gay couple to marry?

Sure, I have opinions of social issues too....but if the whole country is run into the ground by tyranny, what difference does a social issue really make on the impact of everyone?

[deadheadskier]

So, over economics, foreign policy and industry, you are more worried about the right for a gay couple to marry?

yes

social issues are more important to me than the economy and foreign policy

why?

the economy and foreign issues are cyclical. There will always be good times and bad times.

I don't think social injustices should have to wait until good financial times to be addressed.

If you're willing to tell your gay friend, "Hey sorry, gonna have to vote for this guy to sort out the economy, instead of that guy standing up for your rights. But, once the economy is back on track, I'll support a candidate that supports your rights" Go for it. Your choice.

That's a choice I'd never make.

[TakeAStepBack]

So, it would be better to have social issues all worked out, a country completely broke from no solid industry, a terrible currency and wars that are killing people the world over and a plutocratic govt. that imposes heavily onto the rights of its subjects??

I guess I finally realize why I stand alone......

Lastly, I don't think it is the governments role to help with civil liberties like gay marriage. No civil liberties have ever been granted by a large government. It is always movements by the people that make that happen....

[Julius]

If you're willing to tell your gay friend, "Hey sorry, gonna have to vote for this guy to sort out the economy, instead of that guy standing up for your rights. But, once the economy is back on track, I'll support a candidate that supports your rights" Go for it. Your choice.

That's a choice I'd never make.

My two best gay friends are both AGAINST gay marriage and both republicans, so this issue isn't nearly as clear-cut as it seems. One is against it on religious (Catholic) grounds and the other because he thinks that technically, marriage is between a man and a woman and a "civil union" is just fine as long as it includes basic inheritance and living will rights. So I'm not going to get all hung up on the word "marriage" when it comes to my vote.

[deadheadskier]

So, if a black man still had to ride at the back of the bus today, you'd tell him to chill out and wait until the war is over and the budget is balanced before you fight for his rights TASB?

Ideally, I want a candidate that can accomplish both. Voting for someone coming from the right pretty much guarantees that social issues that are important to me will be ignored. Voting for the left at least gives me somewhat of a shot at having both.

[deadheadskier]

My two best gay friends are both AGAINST gay marriage and both republicans, so this issue isn't nearly as clear-cut as it seems. One is against it on religious (Catholic) grounds and the other because he thinks that technically, marriage is between a man and a woman and a "civil union" is just fine as long as it includes basic inheritance and living will rights. So I'm not going to get all hung up on the word "marriage" when it comes to my vote.

same sex rights is more what I'm getting at. Those are still denied.

[TakeAStepBack]

So, if a black man still had to ride at the back of the bus today, you'd tell him to chill out and wait until the war is over and the budget is balanced before you fight for his rights TASB?

Ideally, I want a candidate that can accomplish both. Voting for someone coming from the right pretty much guarantees that social issues that are important to me will be ignored. Voting for the left at least gives me somewhat of a shot at having both.

No, i would recommend he take a stand against the issue. Like what happened in real life. the government didn't one day deecide to give African Americans equal rights. They fought long and hard for them. It isn't the federal govt. role, in my opinion, to grant these things anyway. Gay marriage should be a state govt. issue.

Same as any social issue like abortion, gay marriage, etc..etc..etc..

So, we've established that to some, the social rights issues are far more important than economics, industry and foreign affairs...

Can we come up with any other reasons that separate the two parties?

[Julius]

So, we've established that to some, the social rights issues are far more important than economics, industry and foreign affairs...

Can we come up with any other reasons that separate the two parties?

I look for practical, hard progress on all fronts social, economic and foreign. Neither party delivers on that right now.

I was a life-long Democrat until a few years ago and now I'm just anti-politician of all stripes. Once we find a few more Sam Nunns, George Mitchells and Warren Rudmans who actually care about something other than this bullshit pandering to the idiot vote, I'll start spending time on political campaigns again.

[TakeAStepBack]

If we don't root out the rotten source of the political atmosphere today, it will perpetuate itself indefinitely to our demise.

[vic]

I look for practical, hard progress on all fronts social, economic and foreign. Neither party delivers on that right now.

I was a life-long Democrat until a few years ago and now I'm just anti-politician of all stripes. Once we find a few more Sam Nunns, George Mitchells and Warren Rudmans who actually care about something other than this bullshit pandering to the idiot vote, I'll start spending time on political campaigns again.

this

No, i would recommend he take a stand against the issue. Like what happened in real life. the government didn't one day deecide to give African Americans equal rights.

and this



i love ron paul's stances on the war and economy, but he's attrocious, clueless even, when it comes to social issues...while social issues aren't as important to me, they hold enough importance that i'm hesitant if not turned off by them

i'd take kucinich over paul, but he has absolutely no momentum on his side...the only guy who ever got me really riled up to get behind was ralph nader

[TakeAStepBack]

Paul doesn't believe the federal government belongs in social issue debate. he leaves that stuff to the state level. Rightfully so if we are to consider ourselves a democratic republic.
the problem is that people want a superman for a president. Someone that has all the kinks worked out. It is never going to happen.

So where should the focus be?
I think we are better equipped to confront social inequalities and injustices with a sound economic/industrial/foreign affairs run nation, personally. Ramping up good education for everyone and a better distribution of wealth gives people the mental/social equipment needed to first, understand the social issue to its fullest extent, two, then become mobile towards an end goal.

but for the health not only as a nation now, but for those who will inherit it from us, we must first get this country, and in turn, the world affairs back on track. That has to start with undoing the fuck job we've currently got perpetuating. Or this is only bound to get worse and worse. Ignoring it an hoping something better will one day come along is naive at best. We must remain active, diligent and steadfast in our goal of reshaping the current political/economic/industry/foreign climates.

[TakeAStepBack]

Dan, I'm waiting, brother.

[vic]

Dan, I'm waiting, brother.

[VTscapes]

The Republicans want to take your money and give it to the rich. The Democrats want to take your money and give it to the poor.

[TakeAStepBack]

The Republicans want to take your money and give it to the rich. The Democrats want to take your money and give it to the poor.

That's the underlining tow of the political climate. However, in practice, the democrats display much of the same policy and decision making as the republicans. Neither can balnce the budget, neither can stop the excess spending, and both have remained diligent in tax breaks for the rich and no help for the poor.

Across Obama's board in term he's yet to do much besides continue Bush's awful, and mostly un-constitutional policies and make extensions/concessions to the rich and corporate elitists.

So, is it that Obama isn't really on the democrat's team, or is he simply an extension of one team, role playing two separate ones?