Big Government Bigots

The founder of GOProud, Jimmy LaSalvia gives three reasons why the GOP is in trouble.

Voices of Conservative Youth

Ever since he was a pre-teen, Jimmy LaSalvia carried the banner for the Republican Party. A gay man, he eventually founded GOProud, an organization for conservative and libertarian activists who argue for "all Americans to be treated equally under the law." But in January he left the Republican Party, an exit he blames on entrenched bigotry within its ranks. We asked LaSalvia to give us three reasons why the GOP is in trouble.

1 Big government. The Republican leadership is happy with big government as long as they're in charge. The political maneuvers and strategic decision of Republicans in Congress in the last few years have shown their priority is power, not working to roll back the size and scope of government.

2 Bigotry. While most Republicans are inclusive and welcoming, they tolerate bigotry in their ranks out of fear of losing the votes of a few who are anti-anyone not like them. Tolerating bigotry will keep voters from even considering GOP candidates because bigotry stains everyone unless it's denounced.

3 Disconnection. Many Republicans are simply out of touch with real life in America today, and most voters know it. This cultural disconnect taints the whole party and is more than any one presidential candidate can overcome. Messaging and policy problems can be fixed, but cultural problems take generations to repair.

Also see Scott Shackford's interview with Jimmy LaSalvia, examining these issues in greater depth.

Comments

[Acosmist]

They're too tolerant.

That's a thing that was just said.

OK.

[OneOut]

"2 Bigotry. While most Republicans are inclusive and welcoming, they tolerate bigotry in their ranks out of fear of losing the votes of a few who are anti-anyone not like them. Tolerating bigotry will keep voters from even considering GOP candidates because bigotry stains everyone unless it's denounced."

He should join the Democrat party. They are very tolerant of people who don't think like they do. Ask Sara Palin.

[Paul Spomer]

It's a pretty funny use of the word tolerate. I wonder if he meant the irony.

[Palin's Buttplug]

The Republican leadership is happy with big government as long as they're in charge.

Happy? They feed on it.

[Sevo]

Palin's Buttplug|4.12.14 @ 12:22PM|#
"The Republican leadership is happy with big government as long as they're in charge.
Happy? They feed on it."

Yeah, shitpile and team blue feeds on the citizens.

[Entropy Void]

Soylent BLUE!

[Vampire]

He should have stayed and changed it from within, with other individuals that support and will defend liberty at all costs. Just like the Trojan horse, this is what those who support liberty need to do in order to take over the party.

The socialists, fascists, and communists were successful at doing this here, as many on both sides work together behind the scenes, with a blatant disregard for the natural rights they swore oaths to defend.

[fish_remote]

He should have stayed and changed it from within, with other individuals that support and will defend liberty at all costs.

Staying and changing from within is the loser play. People hang on trying to improve things and start to find themselves increasingly marginalized. By the time they decide to strike out on their own it's too easy politically to label them malcontents or disgruntled.

Better to bail early and take as many like minded with you as you can...take all the resources that you can (contact lists, smart people, smart people with time on their hands, etc). That's a sanction that will be felt by an entrenched opposition!

[John]

You can't build a majority for anything unless you are willing to work with people who hold at least some views you don't like.

[fish_remote]

And you can't shake the eastern establishment grip on the Republicans without eventually costing them support! Libertarians are courted early on every single time and chucked aside after "use"! I don't care what happens to the repubs as currently constituted.

[fish_remote]

And you can't shake the eastern establishment grip on the Republicans without eventually costing them support!

Sorry...bad sentence! I think that LaSalvias approach is the only viable one at this late stage. I'd like to start whittling away at the support base of the McConnells and Boehners of the world by very publicly not showing up financially or at the polls.

[wwhorton]

True, but there's a world of difference between two people who disagree on whether there should be a federal income tax and two people who disagree as to whether one of them is a disgusting immoral reprobate likely to molest children and doomed to burn for eternity in hellfire. I don't think you can compromise on a "debate" where one side of the argument is predicated on your inherent immorality and inferiority.

[prolefeed]

If I have to choose between tolerating people who advocate for stealing from me via taxes and confiscating my weapons and other overt acts, and tolerating people who think I am a disgusting immoral reprobate and thus advocate for trying to persuade me to change my ways, I am going to go with the people committing the crimethink rather than the actual robbery.

[Robert]

In fact you have your best leverage with people who are about 50% in agreement, 50% disagreement with you. Center of mass. Balance of power.

[PapayaSF]

Staying and changing from within is the loser play.

Really? As I often point out, the Socialist Party didn't win elections, they took over the Democratic Party and got this country into the semi-socialist mess we're in now.

[DenverJay]

^ True. But the Republican Party has been on the verge of being taken over by the insurgents since the time of Hoover at least. And yet, the McCain/Romney crowd still control the party. I hope the Tea Party and libertarian-leaning Republicans can change things, but I am not optimistic. Maybe Rand Paul can prove me wrong and win the nomination, but I think the military industrial complex is too important for the country club Republicans to cede control of their power and the money that comes with it.
But, if the Tea Party members and the libertarian-leaning Republicans would just join the Libertarian Party, the LP would instantly become one of the two major players in our two party system, while shedding all the historical baggage of the Republicans.
The press can smear the Republicans because of the long history of the past lies they have used to set up a base for the new lies. But they wouldn't know what to do with the Libertarians as a major party, and when the American people had to choose between the Socialists and the Libertarians, without the bullshit Repubs lying about what they really intend to do once in power, what do you think would happen?

[PapayaSF]

The left took a while to take over the Democrats.

There are numerous problems with the everybody-join-the-LP tactic. One is that the LP is, by nature, rather purist ideologically. A mass party in a diverse and pluralist society needs to compromise, a lot.

Another is just practical, ground-level politics: in all sorts of ways, it's easier to adjust the direction of a large, established party than to take a minor party from small to large.

[DenverJay]

Sure, but that's partly the Libertarian Party's fault for not trying to enlarge the tent. For instance, how important is the whole national parks thing to most libertarians? Do you really think it would be a major hypocrisy to just leave that part out of the platform, and concentrate on the big issues that most people might agree with? How many other things that get the LP labeled as "fringe" are really just orthodox minutia that could be easily brushed aside in the quest to accomplish the major goals of freedom?

Or maybe another party could be started, and encompass the Tea party types, the libertarians, etc. To which you say "it's easier to change the existing Republican Party." To which I already said, "doesn't seem to work." etc.

But as far the practical ground eve stuff, remember, the Republican party was a third party until the Whigs couldn't decide on a position about slavery for the new states, at which time they were replaced by the Republican party in a single election cycle.

[PapayaSF]

I think the Libertarian party is valuable as an ideological balance. I do think they could compromise more and change emphasis as you say, but as an ideologically-based party, there are limits. The Democrats and the left will always be able to fear-monger about anything even resembling pure libertarianism.

The GOP took some pretty big shifts in 1980, 1994, and 2010, though the last two only applied to the House, and 1994 especially didn't "stick" very well. I would love to see the GOP replaced by Libertarians in a single election cycle, but I don't see how that could happen.

[JFree]

The reality is that the Republican Party was NOT a third party. It was the Free Soil Party (and the Liberty Party) that electorally killed off the Whigs as a third party. The Republican Party was merely created as a merger of the principles of the Free Soil Party and the remaining elected pols of the Whigs.

[JFree]

The LP, like every other political party on Earth, is whatever the people who belong to it decide it is.

It is ideological/purist because - NO ONE else belongs to it. 99% of libertarians out there prattle on about 'small-l' and 'bog-L' libertarians - and claim to be 'small-l'.

Which means that the LP can be completely taken over by 'small-l' libertarians - and can overnight become more pragmatic. Instead, small-l types jerk off with the R team - and are surprised when teeny tiny establishment operatives from both the R and D teams can easily manipulate the LP (see Virginia) for their purposes.

[DenverJay]

^ Well said!

[PapayaSF]

Your plan won't work. You don't make an ideologically pure party more moderate by having a bunch of people join to dilute its principles. Has that ever happened? No, the party has to moderate itself and attract new members. Your plan is like recommending that '50s leftist Democrats join the Socialist party to moderate it and win elections.

But if that happened, it wouldn't win elections unless the Democrats fractured in a similar way. The small-government vote would be split between the LP and the GOP, and all the big-government types would still vote for the Dems. It'd be Perot all over again, electing a Dem with a plurality in the low 40s.

[Robert]

Look at all the influence the evangelic Christians gained in the GOP starting in the late 1970s. Other groups can do the same.

[DenverJay]

One difference is that neither the Republican leadership nor the media would dare (publicly) express their scorn over the Moral Majority, while it seems perfectly acceptable to make fun of anybody with the slightest libertarian leanings, and cast them in the role of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts, even after it has been proven that the Federal government HAS conspired against the rights of the American people.

[PapayaSF]

Are you kidding? The Moral Majority and anyone similar gets huge amounts of scorn in the media. And when they aren't enthused about a presidential candidate (e.g. Romney), they stay home and Democrats win the White House. Sad but true.

[DenverJay]

ok, I grant you that they do now, but what about during the Moral Majority's rise to power? Remember all the Republican presidential candidates kissing Oral Roberts' ring, trying to get his blessing? During the '80s, you couldn't get elected dogcatcher if Pat Robertson declared you a heretic.
Abortion wasn't mentioned in the party platform until 1984, even though Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.
Even today, Obama had to "prove" he was a Christian, even though the Constitution specifically says that no religious test can be required of a candidate.

[PapayaSF]

Sure, there was pandering to the religious right in the '80s, but also lots and lots of media scorn.

And Obama's pander wasn't a religious test, because it wasn't official. It's not unconstitutional for voters to simply prefer Christians.

[craiginmass]

Except that the libertarian conventions in our local states (NH and MA) tend to have a couple dozen in attendance while mega-churches have tens of thousands each sunday.

There is a difference in scale. One of these things is not like the other.

Also, libertarians are - by nature - poor organizers, because they don't believe in such things...

[JFree]

Totally agree fish-remote.

It is a complete waste of time to try to 'change' something from within when it simply does not want to be changed. It is the lazy way out. Pretending to 'do something' while merely spinning one's wheels.

[Robert]

Only it's not an "it", it's people.

[PapayaSF]

Did the Democratic party of Stevenson and Scoop Jackson and Mondale and Byrd "want" to be changed into something resembling a fever dream of an '80s leftist college student, obsessed with race and gender and sexual orientation and socialism? Of course not, but it happened... from within.

[Don'tTreadOnMe]

Sad but true. The 2Partee system is here to stay and substantive change can only come from within. That's why I fill out those RNC 'surveys' (give us some money now) and hammeremail the ? congresspersons because there is a chance to get them moving in the right direction.

[Mark22]

The majority these days is independent, and parties look at polls more than membership. It's more important to convince voters as a whole (1) to realize that liberty and free markets matter, (2) to make sure that pollsters hear you, and (3) to ensure that they understand that they can't take your vote for granted.

For you to stay at home because you don't like their message is what they really fear.

[JFree]

What are you yammering on about. The only unique thing Dems have done in the last 5 years is Obamacare - and government healthcare has been an explicit platform goal of Dems since Truman - http://www.trumanlibrary.org/a.....rogram.htm

(and it was first advocated by Teddy Roosevelt in the election of 1912 when he left the R's).

But hey keep jerking off for liberty in the R tent. At some point in the next 5000 years, the R's will (by coincidence) do something positive and you will convince yourself that you aren't really a mere useful idiot but are actually 'accomplishing' something.

[Robert]

Embezzle too, if you can.

[Vampire]

Sadly taking ones contacts and what have you, then leaving completely is far less effective than beating them at their own game from within.

If Ron Paul would have won, there most likely would have been major changes. If he hadn't bothered after his disgust with Reagan, and just quit congress thereby taking his supporters and contacts with him, I doubt there would have been much of a revolution campaign that had taken place.

Rand might actually have a chance. If he just packed up and left, instead of playing their game there would be less of a chamce to have a libertarian in office, but again have a bush, or Christie get un office. Being many have a "follower / submit and or ogle over a candidate" personality, who would you rather them follow? Christie, or Rand, which could hopefully help cure folks of their anti liberty ways and have a large enough platform to get out the message?

[Joe M]

Lighting the John fire...

[John]

LOL He is right about the big government part. His problem is that he equates "doesn't accept and love my lifestyle and wants the government to stick a boot on the face of all who don't" with "bigotry".

As far as the "disconnect", America is a very diverse place. Democrats are as disconnected as Republicans. He thinks Republicans are because they don't agree with him culturally and he assumes the rest of the country does. Well, some of the rest of the country does. Everything he says about the Republicans, a pro life religious person who left the Dems could say about them. The country is divided. What this guy and Reason wants is for both parties to tell around a third of that party that they no longer have a place in either party unless they change. That makes them feel good. I am not sure however it is very productive. That third isn't changing and kicking them out of the GOP and causing them to check out will just hand a permanent majority to the Dems. That is just the short term downside. The long term downside of having a huge section of the country thrown out of the political discourse such that no one in the political process even attempts to represent their values, is something that never occurs to them.

Lastly, whether the GOP is in "trouble" is a relative question to their competition. As long as the Dems are in more trouble, and they appear to be, it doesn't matter how much the GOP is.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Lastly, whether the GOP is in "trouble" is a relative question to their competition

I have to agree with John for once. The trouble is pretty evenly distributed.

Just because the Dems are winning the gay rights issue does not mean that they are in the clear.

[PapayaSF]

I have to agree with John for once.

THE APOCALYPSE IS NIGH!!

[politicsbyothermeans]

The prophesies foretold of this...

[Square]

"Lastly, whether the GOP is in "trouble" is a relative question to their competition. As long as the Dems are in more trouble, and they appear to be, it doesn't matter how much the GOP is."

Isn't this really the single biggest problem we have with our government today? This sense that no matter how terrible the two main parties become we MUST choose between them?

[John]

Yes. That is unlikely to change however since starting a third party will just hand total power to one side or another.

[Square]

I don't think these two "sides" are quite as opposite as you present them as being. I think they overdramatize certain key points of division, like abortion, gay marriage, and certain faux battles over highly visible regulations, making a big, big deal out what evil slimy bastards the other guys are, but in they end they seem pretty much on the same page to me.

[John]

Maybe so. That is a subjective question. Regardless, forming a third party would result in giving total power to one or the other depending on whether that party is from the right or the left.

Even if they are the same, letting one have total power with no worry of losing power because their opposition is divided by a third party, is unlikely to do any good.

[Square]

What I'm suggesting is that there already is only one, and it already has total power. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I do not think that necessarily follows. If your third party grows you can win elections with just 33.4% of the vote.

As long as there are just two parties then enough people who object to one component of one party might continue to support the opposite party just for that reason.

[John]

I do not think that necessarily follows. If your third party grows you can win elections with just 33.4% of the vote.

Only if you draw equally from each party. That is unlikely. What is more likely is that you draw more from one or the other meaning the one you draw the most from loses.

What you need is four parties. If say the Libertarians and Greens started drawing big votes, that would make things interesting. But one or the other would just put one party in charge.

[PapayaSF]

Ha, I had the same thought years ago.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Who is to say that there are not many people who vote Democrat only because they can not stand some current component of the GOP?

Look at 1992, if Perot, who ran as something of a non-socially conservative fiscal conservative, had not imploded he had a good chance of winning.

[Square]

"Who is to say that there are not many people who vote Democrat only because they can not stand some current component of the GOP?"

I know a lot, actually. It's a tough thing, and I don't think John is being dumb - he's just taking a particular strategy that does make sense sometimes.

All the people I know on the left, who would never have supported the Democratic Party 20 years ago, now feel like their rejection of the Democrats and support of Nader in 2000 resulted in the Bush Administration, which they see as an absolutely unmitigated disaster. They will swallow any flavor of the Flavor-Aid to prevent another Bush from happening.

I remember a similar stink among Republicans during the Clinton administration. A lot blamed Perot for Clinton, and their red-faced, spittle-projecting hatred of Clinton kept them in lock-step for a long time afterward.

[Virginian]

Perot was such a grab bag policy wise, I don't think you can really draw broad lessons from him.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Perhaps, but I think what you can draw from him is that a third party candidate can have a credible chance of winning, it does not lead to an automatic easy win for any of the big two.

[Virginian]

No, Perot drew from both Democrats and Republicans. I know we here like to spit on the left/right line as simplistic, but it does serve as a crude barometer.

Candidates who compete for the base of one side of the spectrum in American politics automatically help the other side. Perot had success because his eclectic mix of policy preferences combined with a magnetic personality meant he could draw from all over the spectrum.

[PapayaSF]

This is true. Much of the support for Democrats comes from people who simply hate and fear the GOP (for good or bad reasons), not because they love the Dems.

[Don'tTreadOnMe]

DUH!!!

[Francisco d'Anconia]

His problem is that he equates "doesn't accept and love my lifestyle and wants the government to stick a boot on the face of all who don't" with "bigotry".

This statement, is quite simply fallacious.

I support his right to fuck whomever he wants. I am against the government forcing anyone to accept his lifestyle.

Simply stating that...because he wants to be tolerated means he wants to force acceptance does not make it so.

Your premise is faulty, and therefore, so is your argument. I think you know this, yet you use it as an excuse to support continued bigotry.

[John]

I support his right to fuck whomever he wants. I am against the government forcing anyone to accept his lifestyle.

Good for you. You are not him, however. As far as you go, do you think states should be forced to accept gay marriage over the objection of their voters and do you think businesses should be forced to recognize gay marriages?

If your answer is no, then yeah you don't believe in coercion. That, however, says nothing about this guy.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

a. You are not him either. Why do you claim to speak for him?

b. As with all things, it is a question of force. ALSO your definitions.

Tolerate- Means allow, but not necessarily accept.
Accept- Means agree with.

So, you can choose to not accept gay marriage (or anything else under the sun, for that matter) based on anything your little heart desires, be it religious, cultural, a whim...

You must, however, tolerate it. Their actions do not violate the rights of others, so you may not initiate force upon them.

Pretty simple really.

SO to directly answer your questions using my definitions:

do you think states should be forced to accept gay marriage over the objection of their voters

Accept? No. Tolerate? Yes.

do you think businesses should be forced to recognize gay marriages?

As a private business, you should be able to refuse to deal with anyone you choose.

[John]

Accept? No. Tolerate? Yes.

There is not a single state in the union where it is illegal for a gay couple to call itself married or for people who choose to to treat them as such. That is not what the debate is about. Moreover, no one on either side wants to change that. So how are the GOP bigots? This guy says they are bigots. You don't seem to think that. So you are not him and my point doesn't apply to you.

As a private business, you should be able to refuse to deal with anyone you choose.

You are a great American. This guy, by calling GOP bigots, not so much.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

How do you know his position on non-discrimination law?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

So how are the GOP bigots?

Again, we need to define bigot.

big?ot noun \?bi-g?t\

1. a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

You can still be a bigot based on a lack of acceptance. You may tolerate polish people, but if you "hate polaks" (i.e. don't accept them) you are still a bigot.

Likewise, you may tolerate gays (IOW you do not initiate force against them), yet if you don't accept them (e.g. I hate gays), you are still a bigot.

You have every right to not accept whomever you choose. And based upon how you exercise that right, other people can determine whether they like you or not. You have every right to hate blacks. Doing so, in my eyes, makes you a shitbag person, but hey, believe what you like.

Tolerate means you take no action against them.
Accepting means you'd have em over for diner.

[John]

Tolerate means you take no action against them.
Accepting means you'd have em over for diner.

Sure it does. Last I looked demanding that the law require them to recognize their marriage, is more than just not inviting them over for dinner.

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.

Since when is saying gays shouldn't get state marriage license "strongly and unfairly disliking" gays?

If there is anyone with strong and unfair hate in this conversation, it is you. You are free to do that of course. And I am free to laugh at you.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

John, are you pretending that a not insignificant amount of people who oppose gay marriage 'strongly and unfairly dislike' gays?

[Virginian]

John, are you pretending that a not insignificant amount of people who oppose gay marriage 'strongly and unfairly dislike' gays?
_____________________

Does it matter? One of bedrock principles of rational thought is that we do not look at the motivations for a position, or at the person who is advocating that position's personal life or conduct.

Ideas should fail or succeed on their own merits.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

If you are talking about whether people are bigots you certainly take into account the motivations for their positions.

[Virginian]

If you are talking about whether people are bigots you certainly take into account the motivations for their positions.
__________

Yes it very useful to tar your political opponents as bigots in order to win a debate. That doesn't make it right.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Sure it does. Last I looked demanding that the law require them to recognize their marriage, is more than just not inviting them over for dinner.

We all have equal protection under the law. If you are going to grant entitlements to hetero marriages (not that I agree with doing so), you must grant the same to the homo marriages. PERIOD! I prefer, however, government have NO part of marriage at all.

If there is anyone with strong and unfair hate in this conversation, it is you.

If that is supposed to mean I am bigoted against those who are bigoted against gays, then yes, yes I am. Sign me up as a bigot. Put me firmly in the column under "bigoted against the actively anti-gay."

[Entropy Void]

I hate progtards.
Simply because they are Statists.
I will do what ever is constitutionally within my power against them.
Does that make me a "bigot"?
And even if it does, is that, by your definition, a bad thing?

[Entropy Void]

I hate progtards.
Simply because they are Statists.
I will do what ever is constitutionally within my power against them.
Does that make me a "bigot"?
And even if it does, is that, by your definition, a bad thing?

[Entropy Void]

I hate progtards.
Simply because they are Statists.
I will do what ever is constitutionally within my power against them.
Does that make me a "bigot"?
And even if it does, is that, by your definition, a bad thing?

[wwhorton]

There is not a single state in the union where it is illegal for a gay couple to call itself married or for people who choose to to treat them as such. That is not what the debate is about.

Ok, now you're being deliberately obtuse. No one is arguing about gay marriage as a free speech issue. That's like saying there were no Jim Crow laws because no state had any law preventing black people from saying that they sit next to white people on buses. And, honestly, the tone of your argument is highly objectionable. You're saying that anyone who throws the subhuman fags a bone by not preventing them from talking about theoretically being a couple is somehow not a reprehensible bigot, and that this situation is the one exception where it's somehow morally acceptable to enforce the preferences of one group on another with the force of law.

And, furthermore, most states do not recognize gay marriages. This is, by any standard, a violation of the equal protection clause, and it is based solely on bigotry. No reasonable person could look at these laws and come to the conclusion that they are anything but arbitrary and discriminatory. Just because it's bigotry based on religious belief doesn't make it right.

[Robert]

No reasonable person could look at these laws and come to the conclusion that they are anything but arbitrary and discriminatory. Just because it's bigotry based on religious belief doesn't make it right.

I guess that makes me an unreaasonable person. Or maybe a non-person. And I sure didn't get my ideas from religious belief.

[SusanM]

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/.....eID=004857

While your statement is correct in the sense that there is no state statutory punishment for SSM, there are 33 states where the practice is prohibited either by law or by state constitutional amendment - or both.

As for bigotry? Well, here's Bryan Fischer, a leading anti-SSM activist and conservative Republican darling demonstrating his beliefs about homosexuality:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2.....-host.html

The bottom line here is that, biblically, those "who practice homosexuality" should come under the purview of the law just as much as those who take people captive in order to sell them into slavery. You express a belief in the Scriptures, and I trust your confidence in Scripture is not selective. If you believe all Scripture is inspired, then you are compelled to accept that legal sanctions may appropriately be applied to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Is this the company you want to keep?

[OneOut]

"I support his right to fuck whomever he wants."

Shouldn't the other involved person have just a little say in the matter ?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Shouldn't the other involved person have just a little say in the matter ?

As a libertarian, that goes without saying. But yes.

[Mark22]

Yet, religious groups demand that others are forced to accept them and pay for them, because that's what anti-discrimination laws involving religion, special benefits for "traditional marriage", and tax exemptions for religious organizations mean.

The discussion about "gay marriage" for example has never been about whether Catholics are forced to perform gay marriages, it's been about whether gay couples can enjoy the same tax and immigration benefits that straight couples enjoy.

[Certified Public Asskicker]

I just had a very painful conversation.

Client is angry about taxes, leaves room to use bathroom. Wife says (and her story has no point, at least from my perspective) that he grew up privileged in Greenwich, CT with house servants while she grew up in a rowhouse (in a nice part of town) and rode the bus to private school.

It took a lot of energy not to blurt out "WOW! RODE A BUS TO PRIVATE SCHOOL! How did you overcome such obstacles!?"

[Edwin]

this is part of why this whole country is so fucked up. People have no conception of what a decent standard of living is, putting their bottom lines at living like kings

[Certified Public Asskicker]

She would be horrified to know I rode a bus too...to public school.

[Square]

When I was growing up, we had to eat our caviar out of jars.

[JFree]

We used to dream of eating caviar out of jars. We had to ration our caviar and eat it one roe at a time - and eat pate in between bites of caviar in order to save money.

[DesigNate]

Man all of y'all think you had it hard, we had to resort to eating our orphan miners because father couldn't afford caviar.

[Kevin47]

And they were only orphans because their parents died in the mines.

[Irish]

2 Bigotry. While most Republicans are inclusive and welcoming, they tolerate bigotry in their ranks out of fear of losing the votes of a few who are anti-anyone not like them. Tolerating bigotry will keep voters from even considering GOP candidates because bigotry stains everyone unless it's denounced.

Bullshit. I despise a whole host of Republican ideas, from military Keynesianism to anti-gay marriage legislation, etc., but when a Republican says something really atrocious, other Republicans are never willing to defend him. After Akin's 'legitimate rape' comments, the Republicans tried to get him to drop out of the race. Republicans are so worried about being seen as bigoted that they'll actually call people in their own party racist, even when the person is in no way a racist, for the sole purpose of showing how unbigoted they are.

Compare that to Democrats completely ignoring Harry Reid when he said he was glad Obama doesn't speak a 'negro dialect.' How about the Democrats gladly supporting the candidacy of former Klan member Robert Byrd until his death a few years ago? How about Democrats ignoring the race for mayor in Newark in which Cory Booker was insulted for having white friends and was attacked by his opponent as not being 'one of us' because he had the audacity to be a black guy with a Harvard education?

Who tolerates bigotry again?

[John]

Bigotry is all about gay marriage and open borders Irish. Didn't you know that?

[BardMetal]

And women's rights is all abortion, and birth control (paid for by someone else of course)

That's why Bill Clinton could cheat on his wife constantly, while taking advantage of young interns, and not a peep is heard from the feminists.

But say you're pro-life, or think that businesses shouldn't be forced to pay for birth control if it violates their religious principles, and it's all WAR ON WOMYNZZ!!!

[Square]

Actually during the '92 primaries there was a serious stink from the feminists when Bill's behavior started coming out, but at some point you button it in the name of the coalition.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Why do you think feminists would place cheating on spouses as such a high value? And how did Clinton 'take advantage of young interns?' Lewinsky was an adult that seemed pretty willing from what I have read of the situation.

[PapayaSF]

You have forgotten (as did Democrats and the left) that for a while, the definition of sexual harassment included "power disparity." An underling was said to be unable to fully consent to sex with a boss. Of course that went down the memory hole once Clinton got caught.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I have not read many feminists who said that a boss who reacted to his employee's flirting is necessarily committing sexual harassment.

[Virginian]

Bo the point is that in the late 80s early 90s there was a supposed rash of evil corporate men abusing their company granted authority over underlings to induce sex which would not have been granted otherwise.

This was terrible, it was horrible, it was awful. Then Bill Clinton did it and it was no big deal, consenting adults, blah blah.

It's the double standard that's the issue.

[PapayaSF]

Trust me, Bo, there were.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I think what feminists complained of involved bosses hitting on underlings, not underlings hitting on bosses.

[Virginian]

No, they jettisoned a principle to protect a principal. As usual.

[PapayaSF]

It depends on who you talk to, of course. Every activist movement has fringes. But it seemed pretty common back then for the loudest feminist leaders (i.e. the Marcottes of the day) to claim that the power disparity meant that all sexual relations between bosses and underlings constituted sexual harassment... until Clinton got caught.

[jace]

Ever hear of Anita Hill? A lot of feminist used that very rationale (power disparity) to explain her following Thomas from one gov't agency to another. One doesn't need the full feminist treatise to know what the Lewinsky Scandal was about: Clinton was being sued as a habitual sexual harasser- it was in the Jones testimony where he committed perjury. (so Monica's flirting is moot. It went to a pattern of conduct- is the Esq. just for show?)

[Bill Dalasio]

Lewinsky was an adult that seemed pretty willing from what I have read of the situation.

She was 20 years old. That is legally an adult and the relationship was legal. And if that is your only standard of maturity and of the appropriateness of Mr. Clinton's behavior, well I think that says more about you than the situation.

[craiginmass]

Considering that the GOP is the main force behind the amnesty of millions (Reagan - look it up) as well as the current lack of actual legislation (Big Biz and "Free Markets" like to abuse and underpay employees), this is a fairly fantastic statement...

You seem to be a perfect example of why this dude left.

Failure to solve problems - that is, leaving immigration to the Status Quo, is not a principled position. Nor is hanging your hat on the lack of health care for tens of millions.

You need actual doable solutions. You know - those things we call compromises in the real world.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"Considering that the GOP is the main force behind the amnesty of millions (Reagan - look it up)"

This would make a great point...in 1984.

[craiginmass]

It makes a great point today since those people now number in the tens of millions and it's often their families and relatives who come up and stay with them....and then continue to stay.

Also, the bill wasn't law until almost 1987 and it took many years afterwards for many to prove their command of English, History, etc and become citizens.

So, yeah, it's very relevant today. Recent history.

[MSD62581]

This "low pay" you speak of is the result of those who receive it not being able to produce enough to demand a higher salary. If these employees are actually worth more than they are being paid, then they should try to get a job elsewhere that will pay them more.

As far as this lack of health care, if you take away people who are in the country illegally, people who have the money for health care and don't purchase it and people eligible for health care and don't purchase it, the number drops to eight million. Not quite the "40-50 million without health care coverage" that the left would have us believe.

[DenverJay]

The surplus of cheap labor from illegals doesn't enter in to it? The price of labor is magically immune from the Law of Supply and Demand?
I have worked in the trades long enough to see first hand how cheap labor has destroyed the income of a whole group of people who used to be considered middle-class. And that is just in the construction industry. Include manufacturing, and you are talking about a huge swath of the American working class that is being reduced to poverty by illegal immigration; all while their tax dollars go to support schools who can't educate their children, because the schools are overwhelmed by the non-English speaking children of illiterate peasants, who are busy driving down the value of the working class's homes.

[Mark22]

The price of labor isn't immune to the law of supply and demand, but supply and demand doesn't stop at the border. The choice is whether the jobs are abroad or here, not how much people get paid for them.

And the American working class isn't "reduced to poverty" by anything, it's doing quite well financially compared to pretty much anywhere else in the world.

But, yes, although in relative terms, working class and manual labor jobs are falling further and further behind the rest of society, simply because the rest of society is getting rewarded for becoming more educated and productive. The problem with that is... what?

[craiginmass]

Sorry, but undocumented workers are often abused by employers simply because they cannot go complain to anyone...I know of some who experienced this. They are often fired and not given the last couple of weeks pay - the boss says "sue me".

So my point is that when "the bosses" have virtual slaves, there is no impetus for them to lobby the gubment so that they have to hire real employees and pay benefits, taxes, etc.

[politicsbyothermeans]

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty differentiating between anecdotal evidence and data.

[Dances-with-Trolls]

Who tolerates bigotry again?

More to the point, who defines bigotry?

[PapayaSF]

Obviously, the activists who are most against it, duh.

[Watch Full Movies Free On]

Watch Full Movies Free Online - Anytime, Anywhere Instantly
The Lego Movie 2014( full movies)

Actor: Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett

Director: Phil Lord, Chris Miller

Time: 93

Category: Animation

http://movie-free.tv/flim-the-lego-movie/6177.html

[Archduke von Pantsfan]

is this legal?

[Edwin]

//2 Bigotry.

Does he mean not totally accepting of gays? Yeah, wow, big surprise. It's part of the whole religious thing. Maybe idiots like this should think that if religion is what keeps (a lot of) republicans right-thinking then maybe it's worth the weird eccentric beliefs too. Religion is a code of conduct, which by itself may be necessary to view and deal with the world in the right way.

If he's talking about race, then well he's clearly wrong, and just parroting popular culture bullshit

[John]

^^THIS^^

By his logic, lefty environmentalists are "bigoted" against people who want to drill for oil.

[wwhorton]

Sorry, pal, but if one of your religion's "weird eccentric beliefs" is that two adults of the same sex who bang go straight to hell--and probably have AIDS and abuse kids and everything else--then your religion is a problem and you're an asshole. I used to be more tolerant of that shit, but I get pretty fucking tired of people excusing shitty behavior and stupid ideas because by pulling the religion card they believe they automatically deserve to be respected.

Well, that's a load of shit. Just because you hit the magic religion button doesn't mean I or anyone else has to respect you, and it sure as hell doesn't give you the right to use the coercive power of the state to enforce your "weird eccentric beliefs" on other people who pay the same taxes your church/temple/mosque skips out on. We live in a country where you have a constitutionally-protected right to say whatever you'd like and practice whatever religion you'd like--provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of others--and I fully support your right to be a horrible fucker. However, the price of being able to air your belief and ideas in public is that other people get to criticize them.

[Edwin]

//excusing shitty behavior and stupid ideas

what shitty behavior? Honestly, what socon types are doing anything to gays that's so horrible? Is it anything like what the liberals did to this Eich guy at Mozilla? Which side in relity ismore tolerant?

//oesn't give you the right to use the coercive power of the state to enforce your "weird eccentric beliefs"

Right, which is why it may be imperative for the state to legalize civil unions/gay marriage, but they DO NOT have the right to call it gay MARRIAGE against the taxpayers' wishes and deeply held religious beliefs, when they are FORCED to pay taxes. You can't force me to fund something I don't believe in. It may be only words on forms and shit, but it still matters.

Again, who's honestly more tolerant? Which side do you really think would be open to the libertarian neutral version of marriage, where the state butts out? The righties and socons; whereas the liberals WANT the government to shove their pet agendas (like accepting homosexuality, but not other like let's say Mormons) down everyone's throat.

[Dances-with-Trolls]

but they DO NOT have the right to call it gay MARRIAGE against the taxpayers' wishes

What about the taxpayers who want to call it marriage? Fuck those guys, right?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

but they DO NOT have the right to call it gay MARRIAGE against the taxpayers' wishes and deeply held religious beliefs, when they are FORCED to pay taxes.

Um...

Since when, in a republic, does the majority get to vote away the rights of the minority?

Gays pay taxes too. They have just as much right to call it marriage as you do.

[Mark22]

We have a concept of a legally recognized union of two adults. Frankly, I don't give a damn what that is called legally. But if it is called "marriage" in the law, then it should be available to all consenting adults, not just the ones that Christian churches approve of.

So, we have two choices: either we remove all language about "marriage" from the law books and only talk about "civil unions" or "civil marriages", or alternatively, we continue using the term "marriage" for the legal concept.

What isn't acceptable is the bait-and-switch tactic of churches and Christian conservatives, who switch freely between legal and religious marriage in discussions, and claim that their religious rights are being infringed because a non-religious legal arrangement happens to use the same legal term as a ceremony they perform.

[Mark22]

Unfortunately, the religious right in teh Republican party is not for small government. In fact, in Europe, the social welfare state, the high taxes, the low growth, and the restrictions on individual liberties are a joint project of Christians and socialists. Those two groups have agreed to disagree on the Jesus thing and are now screwing up Europe jointly with big government. In part, that works because they use government and taxes to pay off both unions and churches.

So, I wish conservative Christians were the small government "I disagree with you, but live and let live types" you think they are, but in reality, they are as bad as the socialists and communists.

[OldMexican]

3 Disconnection. Many Republicans are simply out of touch with real life in America today, and most voters know it.

Unlike Democrats, who think that flyover country is populated by dangerous savages that eat their young and watch "Duck Dynasty."

[Raven Nation]

I assume he was based in DC most of his life (since he was/is a lobbyist). I wonder if living and working inside the beltway skewed the pool of people he knew?

[R C Dean]

Aside from the usual on "bigotry", that's the one that really stuck out for me.

Millions of Republicans are blue collar or no more than solidly middle class.

Get out of the cities, and a solid majority of everyone is Republican.

How are these people who live in small towns and smaller cities, and/or who are blue collar or middle class, "out of touch with real life"? They define real life, in my book.

Yeah, I've got a pretty good idea who is out of touch here . . . .

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Perhaps RC what he is getting at is not nominating people who admit they can not work the internet or who are sixty five year old Mormons.

[John]

As opposed to nominating people who have foreign parents, grew up in Hawaii, went to Ivy League Schools and lived his entire life in Chicago while never holding a single job outside politics and academia.

Obama isn't out of touch to you or this guy, because you think the people RC refers to have no right to make any claim on the culture. Romney is out of touch, because he is outside what you consider the culture as you define it, just like a lot of people. But it is the Romneys of the world who are not inclusive enough.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

John, Romney is out of touch because he lives a religion that most Americans regard as fairly odd. McCain admitted to not being able work the internet.

[John]

Last I looked Obama is very out of touch to a large section of America. That doesn't bother you because you don't care what that segment believes.

Lastly, is it your contention people voted for Obama out of Mormon bigotry? That is an interesting theory.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I think people took Romney to be culturally square and distant. Whatever Obama's oddities, he seemed to be the kind of guy to play basketball and have a beer summit, while Romney was the kind of guy for whom coffee is a sin.

Of course, if you want to keep thinking Romney came off to most Americans as approachable, keep on. You did admit to thinking he was going to win on election night, too.

[Virginian]

But a large part of that is created by the media. No matter who the Democrat is, he will be portrayed as cool, in touch, with it. The Republican will always be crazy, or odd, or old, or whatever.

You've bought into that hook line and sinker though, I can see that.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"But a large part of that is created by the media."

Sure, but the GOP helps that rather than fighting against it.

[Virginian]

Sure, but the GOP helps that rather than fighting against it.

_______

Right and when they try to be cool (Huckabee and his bass guitar, for example) they get mocked as uncool squares who are desperately trying.

The only winning move is not to play the game. The one thing I do like about the Republicans is they don't even pretend to appeal to the youth. The youth are retarded, as a general rule. The franchise should be limited to net tax contributors over the age of 25. That would fix every problem this country has.

[OneOut]

He can't work a computer because of damage to his hands when tortured as a POW.

I no longer like the SOB but there is a difference between being "out of touch" about the internet and having mangled hands because he was tortured as a prisoner of war.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Was it that?

"'I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself,' McCain told the New York Times in an interview that appeared Sunday. 'I don't expect to be a great communicator, I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need.'

Even so, McCain bluntly admits, 'I don't e-mail. I've never felt the particular need to e-mail.'"

http://www.wired.com/2008/07/mccain-says-hes/

[craiginmass]

So most Americans consider New England and the entire Freedom Trail to be "odd".

No wonder we are having problems! Next thing you'll tell me "most Americans" think Florida is normal.

[Virginian]

One of those things is not like the other.

[Edwin]

//Unlike Democrats, who think that flyover country is populated by dangerous savages that eat their young and watch "Duck Dynasty.

LOL!

[taker]

Bigots? Whaaaa?

Oh, he means opposition to gay *marriage*. Not that the government should *even* be involved in the sanctification or promotion of particular *relationships* between 2,3 or Katie bar the door number of people. Individual rights, sure, but relationships are just small groups. Funny, I thought libertarians were against special group rights.

As a straight man who fathered and raised four children, a job which will remain with guys like me and not like him for the foreseeable future, *please* allow me to disagree. While I worked and paid for the next generation (say, at a half-mil per child) that will support him and whomever in their old age they gallivanted around the globe on expensive vacations as I slept freezing in a tent with a bunch of adolescent Boy Scouts... that's a relationship with no comparison to his.

So marriage may have changed *definition* over time by the actual underlying relationship natures has not. Without children we wouldn't be having this conversation. Gay people have every bit as much human value as a straight person. I personally know no one who does not believe that. I personally know no one who does not approve of the legitimacy of any kind of personal contract any two people would like to write and indenture themselves to. But there will always be this children thing, and that's necessarily an outlier in gay relationships. So they're not the same, at least not in the mains.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

So taker, I'm a straight married man with no kids. Are you claiming some sort of superiority?

[SugarFree]

If you or your wife is sterile, you might as well be a fag.

But he's no bigot.

[Virginian]

Even by the most progtarded definition of bigotry, that guy made no bigoted statements.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Even by the most progtarded definition of bigotry, that guy made no bigoted statements.

No?

So am I not married because "marriage" is reserved for those who intend to reproduce?

It's a lame excuse to discriminate.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

BREEEDER PRIVILEGE!

[DenverJay]

absolutely. There are so many breeders vs non, that they do not notice how skewed the laws are to their advantage. Although I have reproduced, the boy's mother is raising him, so I get to see both sides, or maybe half a side. Taxes encourage children. And every little twit to ever spit out a baby from her womb thinks that somehow "Being a stay-at-home mom is the world's hardest job (insert applause from other stay-at-home Oprah watchers)"; and that it automatically entitles them to all kinds of special privledges. An attitude that tends to get ingrained, and then carried over into the other parts of her life (like selfish driving habits), and also is inherited like royal privileges by her little snowflake, who must never ever ever EVER be told that he is not the most importantest, most wonderfulest, most bestest thing to ever happen in the entire history of the whole wide world!
Etc.

[Virginian]

But he didn't say anything discriminatory.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

But he didn't say anything discriminatory.

I took this:

But there will always be this children thing, and that's necessarily an outlier in gay relationships. So they're not the same, at least not in the mains.

as an excuse to deny the use of the word "marriage" to gays. If that's how he meant it, he did discriminate.

And if his argument holds for teh gayz, it must hold for me.

[Virginian]

See I read it more like hair splitting or nit picking. From the rest of the post he clearly holds the libertarian position on marriage.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Fair nuff.

[SugarFree]

Even by the most progtarded definition of bigotry, that guy made no bigoted statements.

I said he wasn't a bigot.

[John]

Both the left and the right are divided by culture war. Blacks and the few working class whites left in the Democratic Party are to the right on the culture war. Democrats have gotten around this by telling them too bad and vote for us anyway. This guy wants the GOP to do the same with the SOCONs. The problem is the SOCONS won't go along the way the blacks have. They will stay home or if it got bad enough form a third party. Right now no one, not a third party and not the GOP is beating the Dems without the SOCONS. This guy thinks that the Yutes and the suburban liberals will leave the Democratic party in sufficient numbers if only the SOCONs are kicked to the curb. Maybe, but I don't see it.

[Edwin]

I think the only solution here is to market the SoCon ideals, but with the libertarian bent. Oppose gay marriage, but say it's just about not wanting to be forced to redefine the word, and advocate total, gender- and religion- neutral mariage reform. Etc.

[John]

That is one idea. My problem with pieces like this is that it deals with the problem by pretending it doesn't exist. The problem is how do you get the libertarian right and the religious right to work with one another. It is a tough problem. I don't see how ignoring it will solve it

[BardMetal]

SoCons feel like they are always fighting on the defensive on the culture war. We can appeal to Libertarians and SoCons by basically being neutral on the culture war issues.

Tell the SoCons we will not use government to force beliefs on them they don't not accept.

That means neither opposing gay marriage nor supporting it, and saying we're going to keep government out of it all together, allowing individual churches, and other institutions to define marriage the way they see fit.

That way we are neither changing the definition of marriage on the SoCons, nor are we using the government to prevent gays from marrying.

I think that stance would have a broad appeal amongst all but the most fanatic people on both sides.

[John]

I like that idea. But that is pretty much how I feel about the entire issue.

[Dances-with-Trolls]

I think that would work fine with social conservatives, but SoCons are a different breed, in my opinion. They are about using the force of government to impose their morality, sometimes directly, others indirectly. To me they are little different than progs.

[DesigNate]

They ARE progs.

[Thomas O.]

I've always differentiated between true "social conservatives" and "nanny-state conservatives". You just described the latter. I know many socons who would rather keep their evangelizing and whatnot at the grassroots level.

[Mickey Rat]

"That means neither opposing gay marriage nor supporting it, and saying we're going to keep government out of it all together, allowing individual churches, and other institutions to define marriage the way they see fit."

Except libertarian media like Reason threw its support behind SSM as an equal treatment civil rights issue pursued through the courts. That is not neutral and that rationale opens the use of the law to stamp out all practical dissent on the issue.

[DesigNate]

If I marry Steve in New Hampshire but Texas constitutionally refuses to recognize it but would if I married Eve, how is that NOT an equal treatment issue?

[Gadianton]

The situation you describe is a violation of the full faith and credit clause, and should be pursued as such. Marriage is an official act of the state where it is enacted, and other states don't have the ability to disavow such acts.

If you want to marry Steve in Texas, and Texas won't issue you a marriage license, that would be an equal protection issue.

I dislike the the broad application of the equal protection clause because, as currently applied, it is a clear disavowal of a quaint notion known as federalism. Now that everything has become a "right," the concept of 50 laboratories of freedom has gone out the window. If you can sue for your right to marry Steve in Texas, then the Federal government is dictating to Texas something which it has no constitutional power to do.

[Mark22]

The term "culture war" refers explicitly to a fight by religious conservatives to make religion the basis of government in 19th century Germany and impose religion through the state. The 20th century US usage was borrowed from the 19th century German usage ("Kulturkampf").

The German culture war ultimately led to the installation of Hitler as dictator, because the Christian parties rather supported Hitler in parliament than give an inch to (classical) liberals or socialists.

Historical precedent suggests that many SoCons would rather destroy democracy than give up on their goal of imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of us.

[Robert]

The libertarian and the religious "right" already work with each other a lot. The religious "left", hardly at all with libertarians these days, although they used to, for instance on anti-draft & anti-war matters.

[Palin's Buttplug]

SoCons poison everything (to paraphrase C. Hitchens). Even on foreign policy they have an Israel-is-sacred and Christian Crusadin' worldview. They screw up culture, the media, education, the military, contraception - you name it.

They do far more harm to liberty than some dreary unorganized Occupy movement.

[MSD62581]

There is no attempt on the part of the SoCons to limit or eliminate contraception. The only issue with that is their lack of wanting employers to be forced to provide it free of charge. Of course, according to the left, if the government isn't providing something to you, it is depriving you of it.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

SoCons have pushed against proposals to make contraception over the counter, for what it is worth. And of course in the past they criminalized its sale and use, they just lost that fight.

[Square]

Not to mention pushing against proposals to mention to teenagers that there is such a thing as contraception . . .

[MSD62581]

Against who mentioning this?

[Robert]

The purveyors of the products, for instance.

[MSD62581]

Socons have pushed against private manufacturers telling teenagers that birth control exists? I'm not sure how they would accomplish this. And is this conservative politicians or just conservative parents who disapprove?

[MSD62581]

Reason just had an article about how Bobby Jindal (a Socon himself) was leading an effort to make more birth control over the counter. It's actually the left that resists this because it puts more decisions in the hands of the individual and not the government.

And when was the sale of contraception attempted to be made illegal? Not any time recently. So the "they just lost that fight" claim is really not accurate.

[Robert]

"Just" in the sense of "only", not "recently". It was 40-50 yrs. ago.

Conservatives want to keep things as they are (or the way they grew up with), so they wouldn't be interested in changing that now.

[DesigNate]

I'd be willing to bet that the Dems Big Pharma donors probably have something to do with that.

[Irish]

I just realized this guy was the founder of GOPROUD. As such, he clearly means bigotry against gays when he says bigotry.

It's obviously true that there's more bigotry against gay people in the Republican party than the Democratic Party. That said, it is the stated position of the Democrats that any white person who doesn't agree with them is racist, that any black person who doesn't agree with them is an Uncle Tom, and that any woman who doesn't agree with them is a patriarchy supporting rape apologist. I've seen enough right wing women get called 'cunts' by oh so enlightened progressives to know that they don't actually believe any of the things they pretend to believe.

I have trouble looking at that and concluding that the Republicans are the primary font of bigotry in our society.

[John]

Yes. He thinks the GOP can gain more votes by embracing gays than they will lose by telling the SOCONS to pound sand. Rightly or wrongly, I think he is mistaken about that.

[Virginian]

Well I actually happen to think the SoCons won't leave the GOP over gay marriage. They would over abortion, but not gay marriage.

They'd bitch and moan, and there would be a Bible thumper in the primary who might need to be appeased with a VP nomination. But they won't bolt.

I actually do think dropping their opposition to gay marriage would be a net gainer for the GOP.

[John]

If you had to do it over again, they should have embraced gay marriage under the Andrew Sullivan theory that if you just let the decadant sodomites get married and settle down they will do less damage to society. That would have taken gay marriage out of court by enacting it via legislation. That means it would have never been ruled a right. It also would have divided the gay community about the issue as some rejected it as a insult to their lifestyle.

That said, even if the GOP were to embrace gay marriage, I don't think it would help. The left will just move onto something else. Gay marriage is now becoming "public accommodation laws for gays". When that is done it will be transsexuals and after that something else.

The left uses its hold over popular culture to take an issue and make objecting to it "bigoted" and then marginalizing their opponents with the charge. Twenty years ago the debate was about letting gays come out without stigma. No one would have been called a "bigot" for objecting to gay marriage. Now everyone is, just like anyone who objects to unisex bathrooms is going to be called in five years.

Embracing gay marriage may be the morally right thing to do. Regardless, doing it will not end the culture war or keep the left from calling the right bigots.

[PapayaSF]

You are right that this will be pushed, endlessly. 10 years ago few would have thought that gay rights meant "A wedding photographer or cake baker should be legally forced to do a gay wedding."

So, how long before there's a lawsuit that forces a church to host a gay wedding, or a priest to perform one? I say about five years.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

It would have to come with legislation. The only reason the baker and the florist are facing this is because of state non-discrimination statutes, which usually exempt churches.

[Robert]

Don't forget that the GOP wasn't like that until the evangelics came in in the 1970s. If the GOP became unresponsive, what makes you think they wouldn't just try again, harder?

Many have commented over the years since then about how the GOP has paid no more than lip service to the traditionalists, but I do think they have influence there, just not enough to get most of what they'd like. Neither does anyone else in a major political party.

[Virginian]

I'd argue they haven't gotten anything of what they wanted. Their big issue is abortion, and they've not gotten anything on that. Their little issues keep changing, because they keep losing. Bans on violent video games? No way. Mandatory prayer in school? Ditto. Ban on flag desecration? Pshhh.

The reason I'm not scared of SoCons is that the entire corpus of 1st Amendment law is against them. Everything they would like to pass is unconstitutional. The Botards of the world are fearful of a shackled tiger.

Meanwhile those same courts rubber stamp every new social justice scheme that passes Congress, because Commerce Clause. Who is the bigger threat, at this time?

[Robert]

They've gotten more than you think.

One thing they got was tax cuts. Remember, not all their issues are theirs alone.

Also, although they haven't gotten abortions illegal, because they're up against court rulings, in many states they've pushed the restrictions about as far as they can go before bumping into them.

See how things are moving on marijuana now? It's a resumption of the trend from 40 yrs. ago. Had there not been a trad backlash against pot, the progress we're seeing today would've taken place decades earlier.

Without the pushback from them, legal gambling would've gotten farther & faster.

Remember that they're part of the pro-Israel coalition too. Plus influential in favoring asylum for persons persecuted religiously abroad.

They've helped move the needle on school choice.

They've also helped the FCC hold their line on broadcast indecency; the trend on that was very different in the 1970s.

Most of all, they've cast the GOP as "conservative". It didn't look that way 40+ yrs. ago. Back then the Republicans looked at Goldwater & thought, better not make that mistake again.

[Virginian]

It was pretty clear from my post I was talking about the anti-libertarian parts of the SoCon policy preferences.

You can't say "without them, things would have been better quicker". That's Krugman shit right there.

They haven't won on any of their unlibertarian policies. Not one. In fact they keep losing.

Also, although they haven't gotten abortions illegal, because they're up against court rulings

Dude I literally said that in my post.

[Virginian]

The third point has some merit to it. I've yet to see any Republican talking about Obamacare dooms so many millenials into working two or even three part time jobs. It's true, and it hammers a fracture point in the Obama coalition. It's great politics. The GOP is too stupid to do it.

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

I predict that being a major talking point in Rand Pau's 2016 campaign.

I hear that chatter all the time among the young conservative/libertarian activists. I'm optimistic his campaign

[PapayaSF]

Hear, hear. And there are other fracture points. The GOP should take the side of small and organic food producers, alternative medicine providers, etc. The Democratic love for centralized regulation hurts a large part of their coalition, but the GOP rarely hits that point directly.

[craiginmass]

Are you aware that the organic and health food producers are, by and large, ex-hippies who are to the far left?

I know many of them....and can assure you that this won't make a right wing talking point unless you champion wal-mart now handling organics and paying low wages and benefits.

Alternative medicine? Most of that (massage, acupuncture, etc. etc) also very leftist.

In fact, most innovative and new ideas are, almost by definition, to the left. If you think I'm making that up, let's compare Silicon Valley and Boston with Dallas and Phoenix.

[Virginian]

let's compare Silicon Valley and Boston with Dallas and Phoenix

You picked two of the fastest growing cities in the US, with booming economies, as an example of a negative?

Are you trolling or just stupid?

[politicsbyothermeans]

But... but... he personally knows people there so I'm sure he know he's right.

[PapayaSF]

Some ex-hippies became conservatives or libertarians. In any case, it's still a potential wedge issue for the GOP to use. Someone may be basically leftist but still not want to vote for/donate to a party that aims to destroy their livelihood.

[craiginmass]

"It's true" conflicts with the data which shows that, on average, weekly hours worked per person in the private market have increased constantly since about 2009.

Your data please?

I know, I know....reality doesn't matter...as you say "it's great politics"....when you can just spread BS and call it true.

[Kevin47]

People are working more hours while earnings have dipped slightly. That only reinforces his point about working multiple jobs.

[Virginian]

lol yeah I love how he thinks he just factpwned me when the data backs me up.

lol is he retarded or a troll?

[craiginmass]

Show me the data. Link please.

Let's try some common sense. Firstly, the 30 hours thing was in force for many many years before the ACA. Companies always tried to cut employees out of any benefits which may come with full time work. In fact, many companies did away with employees, forcing former workers to become "contractors" even though it was quasi-illegal (but who is gonna complain?).

In that case they got ZERO benefits.

But, with the ACA, a worker can now obtain very low cost insurance personally and therefore has the advantage of job portability. Now they can start their own business without worrying about a lapse in coverage. They can change jobs in a similar fashion.

Try, for one minute, to put aside your preconceptions. Which is better...being 100% tied to your current employers for health care...which costs you more and does less each year...and with the danger of being dropped if you change jobs or go into biz for yourself....

or

Door #2 - portability of reasonable health insurance where you never get dropped.

I doubt I will receive an honest answer from most since it would conflict with their world views.

[Virginian]

Show me the data. Link please.

lol wut? you made the claim, you back it up.

Firstly, the 30 hours thing was in force for many many years before the ACA.

Citation needed.

In fact, many companies did away with employees, forcing former workers to become "contractors" even though it was quasi-illegal

Citation needed.

But, with the ACA, a worker can now obtain very low cost insurance personally and therefore has the advantage of job portability.

Oh really? How? Do I go on the website?

I doubt I will receive an honest answer

You know, around here, where I come from, man calls another man a liar, he better be ready to back it up. Show down bitch, or shut the fuck up.

[craiginmass]

Uh, look above.

Someone claimed that "I've yet to see any Republican talking about Obamacare dooms so many millenials into working two or even three part time jobs. It's true"

I disputed that based on all available evidence. The OP quoted is the one who failed to provide any data.

This is often the problem with ideology. Folks accept stuff as "being true", when in fact it's very possible that:

1. It's not
2. The construct of "being true" may be somewhat accurate, but correlation is not causation.

For example - it's very true - I stand by this 100%, the Barack Obama was amazing great for the stock market - it having doubled over only a few years.

Obama was great for the Real Estate market as, under his admin, it stabilized and even headed up in many markets (see Case-Shiller).

So, these statements are very true. But it is a whole 'nother story about whether this is because of Obama or just happened to occur...

But back to that OP. IMHO, that's not a good tack for a political advantage. People inherently know that many big corporations try to screw their workers....after all, the less they give, the more they make. Rubbing their noses in it is not likely to help.

I really doubt that the GOP can claim "If you elect us, you will still have good health care AND you will get 40 hours a week".

[Kevin47]

Being a contractor is quasi-legal? What the hell does that even mean?

[craiginmass]

It means many persons who should be employees are told they are now contractors - even though there are laws covering that stuff. Example - if someone has a set number of hours and has to show up, etc. etc - they are an employee, not a contractor.

However, during the great "trickle down" 80's, this was thrown to the wind and many very large companies changed workers to contractors. It continues today. Surely you know that?

One of the main reasons for this is so the corporations has more rights and the workers less...society as a whole ends up eating the costs when the contractor is out of work (as opposed to them receiving unemployment or vested work benefits)....

We keep allowing the "free market" corporations to cherry pick and then we (the people) end up having to clean up their garbage.

Medicare is one example. Many people who are older and sick would simply be left to die as they could not afford to pay the costs. Insurance companies would never take them! Why make a bad bet?

So the cost falls on all of us.

I would rather pay the TRUE COST as we go along.....which is called Universal Health Care.

The ACA was thought up by the Heritage Foundation. It is a conservative approach......except for the party labels. BTW, I am a Perot voter and over 60 as well as a person who never accepted or took a dime in welfare or gubment money...in other words, a conservative.

[Kevin47]

"However, during the great "trickle down" 80's, this was thrown to the wind and many very large companies changed workers to contractors. It continues today. Surely you know that?"

As a contractor, I know that. My working arrangement (which I happen to like) is entirely, 100% legal. Nothing "quasi" about it.

[politicsbyothermeans]

Low cost insurance?

I chortled.

[craiginmass]

You are correct!

The USA, due to our predatory health care system and the allowance of fraud and overuse, pays the highest prices per capita of any advanced country.

As I remember it was about $8500 per person per year in 2009.

That means if you are a family of 5, your "cost" is over $40K per year. If you are not paying it, someone else is.

However, many people have been pleasantly surprised by the "relatively" reasonable rates of the ACA companies (don't forget - this insurance is provided through insurance companies, not the gubment).

We are over 60 and pay about 13K per year for a decent policy (2 people). If I add in all deductibles and stuff which is not covered, that could balloon to 20K.

BUT, given an average per capita of $8500, a couple of "average" age and health would be paying 17K. So I'm getting a fair deal considering we are certainly in the older sector of the spectrum.

[DesigNate]

I doubt I will receive an honest answer from most since it would conflict with their world views.

That's right dipshit, you're just here preaching the good news to those who refuse to hear. Please come back when you've got a leg up on our other trolls.

Oh and health insurance (care is what your doctor provides numb nuts) is MORE expensive on "the marketplace" if you can even get on the website.

[David_TheMan]

The GOP - Republican part is a descendent of the big government crony capitalist Whig party. It has never been the party of small government except in rhetoric.

[Irish]

^ This is a fact, and it's a far more relevant attack on the Republican Party than putting forward Democratic talking points about bigotry.

[Square]

There was Coolidge . . .

[David_TheMan]

Yes the man who poisoned US citizens to meke them stop drinking alcohol.

[sasob]

Hmm. I could have sworn I read that it was alcohol that he poisoned to make US citizens stop drinking alcohol, not citizens themselves.

[John]

Again, everything is relative. It is big government or insane big government now.

[David_TheMan]

I don't see a difference in the government of democrats than I saw in the government of republicans.

Obama (the supposed most liberal of all presidents) at the end of the day he is no different in the slightest to Bush.

[John]

Did Bush ever force people to act against their religious beliefs or pass any domestic program as damaging or invasive as Obamacare? The level of discretionary spending exploded when the Dems took over congress in 07. The deficit levels and growth in spending speaks for itself. To say there is "no difference" is to say numbers just don't matter and there is only the perfect or the worst and nothing in between.

[Square]

No - to say there is no difference is to point out that discretionary spending explodes under everybody, and everybody complains about it being the other party's fault.

[John]

It didn't explode under Bush. It actually went down from 04 along with the deficit. The deficit went down from 04 to 07, right up until the Congress changed.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Deficit? I thought the discussion was on spending?

[David_TheMan]

The deficit never decreased under Bush.
The national debt increaed every year of Bush's term.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I think John is correct that the deficits decreased in Bush's later years, but spending, which is what we were talking about, did not. It kept going up.

http://www.usgovernmentspendin.....chart.html

[David_TheMan]

I think I was getting mixed up in semantics.

When someone says the deficit decreased, I think of national debt decreasing, not the budget deficit of that year being less than it was the other year.

I was more refering to national debt increasing every year under bush's presidency.

[PapayaSF]

Yes, but John's point stands: As bad as Bush was, Obama has been worse.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I think that is true, but Square's point stands to: each new administration has outdone the previous in recent times, the GOP no exception.

[Square]

Precisely. As bad as Clinton was, Bush II was worse. As bad as Bush I was, Clinton was worse, etc.

Compared to Bush II Carter was practically a small-government libertarian.

[craiginmass]

John, you really can't be that clueless!

Surely you remember - it's so recent! GW wanted idiots to think that he didn't destroy things as much as he did (we found out soon after, I think you'll agree) - so, he didn't put the WARS into the budget. Therefore, they were not in the deficit as stated.

Here is an article on this very site with some info on it - of course, the numbers have tripled since then. Bottom line, those wars cost us 3-5 trillion plus interest.....and there was no way of stopping that train once it was rolling down the track.

It doesn't take a high IQ to understand that the Great Recession was largely a construct of the Bush administration and their "free market" ways. Problem is, they privatized the profits and socialized the costs.

[Kevin47]

Actually, he did neither. He socialized the profits and kicked the can down the road on costs.

[PapayaSF]

It doesn't take a high IQ to understand that the Great Recession was largely a construct of the Bush administration and their "free market" ways.

Nonsense. They were complicit, but Democrats had been pushing hard on the "home loans for minorities" thing for years and years, and actively prevented anyone from looking too closely at it. That's what triggered the recession, not the wars.

[craiginmass]

Simplistic answers are so...simple....

Firstly, you can look up the GW speeches on getting "everyone" into a home. Everyone.

Bush was pro-corporation - meaning unbridled development with as few regulations as possible. Wall Street leveraged the entire mess many times over.

History, however, will likely blame the "hands off" free market policies for the mess. It's proper regulation which keeps so-called "free markets" in check, otherwise personal greed wins the day.

Enron is a perfect example -GW knew Kenny well enough to call him Kenny and almost hired him as Sec. of Energy! Basically, the Bush admin was the foxes watching the chickens....and they gorged on them until they all became violently sick.

The war costs as well as the giant sucking sounds of millions of Americans being dragged into the logistics of fruitless foreign adventures came at a high cost.

Add in a couple trillion here and a couple trillion there and pretty soon you're talking big numbers.

Bush is currently ranked among the worst presidents in history - a place I am sure (I'm a historian) he will stay. There is not way - despite the opinions of some here - to whitewash that disaster. We almost "lost this sucker" that being the economy of this country and possibly the world. Basically, he was a boy trying to do a man's job....and his corporate and neo-con allies steered the ship into the rocks. It wasn't an accident - but rather a perfect example of what total selfishness brings.

[Kevin47]

"Firstly, you can look up the GW speeches on getting "everyone" into a home. Everyone."

Hence the use of the word "complicit", instead of "unilaterally opposed".

"Bush is currently ranked among the worst presidents in history - a place I am sure (I'm a historian) he will stay."

Self-fulfilling prophecy, in other words. I think Bush will be remembered as Hoover was; vilified for all the wrong reasons. That said, academia won't have such an easy time whitewashing his successor, unless Obama can find a nice big war to latch onto.

[David_TheMan]

Being forced to do something against your religious beliefs is irrelevant to being forced to do something against your will period. The religious angle is a distinction without difference with regard to forced behavior being done by both presidents.

Bush forced taxpayers to support the savings of wall street connected firms with his TARP and various bailouts. Bush stole money from US citizens to expand Medicare and to expand the department of education with the no child left behind. Bush started two wars, pushed the PATRIOT Act, started the PRISM and various domestic spying programs, extraordinary rendition, torture, illegal arrests and imprisonment of US citizens and non-citizens with no trials.

We could also add in the two wars Bush started, the drone bombing he started, and etc.

They really have enacted the same fucking policies.

[John]

The religious angle is a distinction without difference with regard to forced behavior being done by both presidents.

Sure it is, as long as you pretend there isn't a First Amendment. Religious expression is an enumerated right. So yeah, it is different. If you don't like it, repeal the 1st Amendment.

And the government forces people to do things against their will all of the time. It is what governments do. What do you think taxes are.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

There are other parts to the First Amendment, John.

[John]

There are other parts of the Constitution Bo. Go look if you don't believe me. But who cares? That there are other parts doesn't make the right of free exercise of Religion not exist or any less of a specially protected right.

Nice of you to inform us of your knowledge of the Constitution. It sadly though is besides the point.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

You keep jumping up and down and pointing to the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause, but there is an Establishment Clause which forbids special endorsement of religion and there association rights within the First apply to everyone. So why a special exemption just for religious people?

[John]

There is a commerce clause too. That doesn't allow the government to coerce people to act against their religion either. The establishment clause has no bearing on the fact that personal religious preference is a specially protected right. That was the point, which you unsurprisingly don't understand.

[David_TheMan]

No it isn't different. It is something you want to focus on, but it doesn't make it different them any different.

I know what taxes are, which is why I called it theft earlier. I also know you wanted to ignore domestic spying, Patriot Act, illegal imprisonment, torture, illegal wars, and etc. I know you also wanted to ignore expansion of Medicaid, expansion of DOE, hell the gun walking program began under Bush. all these violations of rights and illegalities happened under Bush as well as Obama. Which again reinforces my point that they are the same.

[John]

No it isn't different. It is something you want to focus on, but it doesn't make it different them any different.

Again, take it up with the drafters. It doesn't say make no on my free exercise of NFL team preference or my ability to invest in pyramid schemes or keep money overseas. It says religion. That makes religious different. You don't like that. That doesn't change what it is.

[John]

And all of those things you list continued under Obama. So all you are telling me is Bush did a lot of bad things that Obama did too. That doesn't explain why Obama isn't worse for having done some things even Bush didn't do.

[David_TheMan]

So under Bush the free exercise of religion for muslims was respected?

Even though he illegally setup spying operations in mosques in the US?

[David_TheMan]

I don't have to take anything up with anyone.

Both have grossly violated the limitations imposed by the Constitution. So again trying to parse out religion as the be all end all when they have both violated the law, expaned the federal government, provided kick backs to their friends, and launched wars, is a distinction without a difference.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

And reading it with the establishment clause you get something like Scalia's opinion in Smith John.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"Did Bush ever force people to act against their religious beliefs or pass any domestic program as damaging or invasive as Obamacare?"

Like NSA spying?

[John]

You mean it stopped under Obama? Wow. That is big news. You should get out there and tell people that.

If it didn't, however, it is a push and Obama still has to answer for Obamacare relative to Bush.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Your question was "pass any domestic program as damaging or invasive as"...Do you deny Bush created this domestic program?

[John]

The question was about Bush relative to Obama. Sorry you were too dense to realize that.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Hmm, here is the exact question:

"Did Bush ever force people to act against their religious beliefs or pass any domestic program as damaging or invasive as Obamacare?"

That sure seems like a question asking what damaging and invasive domestic programs did Bush enact that rival Obamacare.

So, do you think NSA spying is not damaging, not invasive, or does not rival Obamacare?

[John]

Yes Bo, you are extremely dense and can't read things in context and have issues following arguments. Everyone who reads your posts knows that. You don't have to spend an entire post explaining how you missed the point.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Look, if you ask specific questions you get specific answers. If you meant to say 'what damaging and invasive domestic programs comparable to Obamacare did Bush create which Obama did not continue' then say that.

Of course we know what is really going on: you are one of the last Bush apologists on the planet.

[PapayaSF]

I think Obamacare is far worse than NSA spying, because it's actually costing individuals their health plans, their doctors, their money, and lots of time to deal with it all. Plus, NSA policies and actions can be changed far more easily.

[craiginmass]

Obama is certainly not a liberal. Perhaps he's slightly progressive on some issues, but he'd be right wing in Europe or Canada (maybe center in Canada) and in the USA may be slightly left of center...

Teddy and FDR (both rated among the top 6 or so Presidents of all time) were much further to the left.

FDR told Wall Street and the Big Banks "I welcome your Hate". Obama has conferences with them....

[buybuydandavis]

1,2, and 3 applies even more to Progressives.

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

So did this guy joi the Libertarian Party? If he got sick of the Jesus stuff in the GOP that would seem to be the next logical step.

[Flemur]

A gay man,

People with the Correct paraphilias are so smart and dreamy!

1: The Republican leadership is happy with big government as long as they're in charge.

Same for the Dems, only more so.

2: Tolerating bigotry will keep voters from even considering GOP candidates because bigotry stains everyone unless it's denounced.

The Reps should be more intolerant, like Dems.

3: ?

Vapor.

[Jerry Lavoy]

All valid points. I identify as a "Libertarian" even though I'm not sure I really am by their definition. Being a fiscal conservative, atheist, pro-gay rights, and anti "War on drugs", I am far from being welcomed into the GOP myself. Oh they would gladly take my vote, but they don't represent anyone like me. Neither do the Democrats.

[Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.]

Problem is, today's GOP is increasingly dominated why evangelical Christians who would simply say, "If Jimmy LaSalvia was TRULY conservative, he would fall to his knees, repent of his wicked ways, and beg JESUS to forgive him!"

[Virginian]

Evangelical Christians? You mean like Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, and Debbie Stabenow?

"Social Gospel" Methodists have done far more harm to liberty then any SoCon I can think of.

[Pulseguy]

Personally, I don't know anyone who could care less about who sleeps with whom. And, the bulk of my friends are right wing. I personally don't know anyone who is racist. I don't know, to the best of my knowledge, anyone who even KNOWS anyone who is racist. I can say this because I've been asking that question for the last three years of everyone I know. If the person is white and under 75 years of age I see absolutely no racism or homophobia. I do know Asians and blacks who are racist, against each other, and against white people. I don't know any white person who would care if their child married a black person, but I do know Asians who would go nuts if their child was about to marry a white person.

I do know a lot of left wing types who absolutely hate Christians. And, a lot of left wing types who hate bankers/oil companies/logging companies/developers/landlords/and so on. And, I see a lot of hateful talk against white, middle class, males from the left in general, and especially from women on the left.

The only hate I see is coming from the left. Not the right.

At the very most you might get a condescending remark from someone on the right about blacks/gays/women. And, not about being black or gay or being a woman, but only about the politicized aspects of each.

[PapayaSF]

Maybe it's because I don't travel in right-wing circles I don't see much hate there, but personally, I agree about the left: the left-wingers I know often seethe with hate and prejudice toward Christians, etc.

[craiginmass]

Really? That's funny, my home states are the most Catholic in the USA and they are also often noted as the most liberal. I've worked for Jesuits who are ultra-left (social justice, etc.)....

You need to get out more. This whole "Christians are Victims" thing is a Fox News faux outrage fantasy.

[sasob]

But when those Catholics and liberals use the word Christians quite often they are referring to Evangelical or Protestant members of the religion. An old friend of mine, who is a lapsed Catholic and politically liberal in many ways, was once railing on about the damned Christians. He was actually offended when I pointed out that he, himself, was also a Christian.

[craiginmass]

This dude has "reason". Listen to him.

[Banjos]

Drink!

[dpbisme]

Seriously???? One of the dumber Reason articles...

BIG GOVERNMENT?

The Democrats have enriched themselves and their donors for decades. The green Energy Scams, the Unions, Wall Street, the NGOS... All of them then turning around and spending it to keep them in power.

Sure during the first few Bush years he Republicans tried to behave like Democrats and buy everybody off but they were way to late to the game since the people they were giving the money to were already in the Democrats pockets....

BIGOTRY?
Just say you want to balance the budget and control spending and you are labeled a Racist or you are fighting a War on Women.

DISCONNECTION:
Waging a war on Energy independence, refusal to support free people around the world, shutting down business and putting millions out of work. (Auto industry, Coal Mining, Cigar, firearms, or waht ever Democrats don't like) The Democratic Urbanite Elite (O-Bozo) have no idea what it is like out here in the trenches... They can't do math and don't have a clue as to why the continuing Debt is a problem....

Like I said dumb (and biased) article...

[craiginmass]

Perhaps you should look up the percentages of energy this country is getting from "green" sources as well as the companies such as Tesla who received grants from the Gubment (Bush happened to start that program)....

In the 1960's, the "unions" were "socons" and beat up the hippies for being "left". You folks look for whatever whipping boys you can find and then promote them to ignorant people who haven't read or lived through history.

Then you make up revisions of history quicker than fiction writers like Ayn Rand.

When things actually work, you scream "bad bad", when they don't work, you scream "bad bad"...

Just as a small touch of history, "politicians and their donors" have enriched themselves since the beginning of recorded history and definitely since the first day this country was founded. In fact, the single biggest reason for the founding was because people wanted stuff (more of their own profits). So you could define that as "enriching themselves and their donors".

You'll never be satisfied- when things go well, you'll find a good reason why they didn't.

[Kevin47]

No, unions were not "SoCons". In the south, they were progressive stalwarts. Your assertion is absurd.

[craiginmass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot

"AFL-CIO President George Meany and most labor leaders in the United States were vehemently anti-communist and strongly supported US military involvement in Southeast Asia"

[Kevin47]

George Meany was pretty much a Socialist. Is that what you meant by SoCon?

[Virginian]

This retard is seriously arguing that the President of the AFL-CIO was conservative?

This is one of the best trolls ever.

[craiginmass]

I used the word "socon" in quotes just to illustrate that things are not as simple as they seem. As the article says, the Unions were often pro-war (that was the conservative and social conservative view at the time...I was there).......and they were strongly anti-communist (red scare, etc.) and "anti-hippie".

This is because they were made up largely of working people who showed up at their jobs each day and worked hard to make a better life for themselves and their children.

Is that "conservative" or "liberal"? Perhaps I do need schooling on this.....

Was IKE a liberal or a conservative?

[Kevin47]

"I used the word "socon" in quotes just to illustrate that things are not as simple as they seem."

How does throwing quotes around "SoCon" introduce ambiguity? Opposing communism was one of the issues that split the Democratic party, which ultimately led the opposition. There's nothing conservative about that, and it is perfectly within the progressive oeuvre to stamp out dissent with violent force.

"Was IKE a liberal or a conservative?"

Neither.

[Mickey Rat]

Oh, you don't know what set of issues "SoCon" refers to, it is just a label for people whose views you don't like.

[craiginmass]

I never used that work in my entire life until I saw it here.....and I use it in quotes to show my opinion that it's a silly construct.

Separating people seems to he somewhat of the speciality here. Am I a "socon" if I've been married for 35 years, have 4 kids, worked hard and gotten somewhere, never taken welfare and - by most accounts - would be called a "maker"?

More likely I'd be labeled a radical because I have always taken the time to actually read about things an realize they are not black-white or left-right.

Peel back the skin a layer on so-called "socons" and you usually find Ted Haggard.

[Kevin47]

"Separating people seems to he somewhat of the speciality here. Am I a "socon" if I've been married for 35 years, have 4 kids, worked hard and gotten somewhere, never taken welfare and - by most accounts - would be called a "maker"?"

No.

[craiginmass]

Well, glad to hear it.....
🙂

My thinking is that a web site called Reason should be about Reason and independent thinking.

It's easy to say that Gubment should not legislate morality, but we can see that - even on the smallest micro level - it must. An example is your local condo association or HOA. Even at the level of a dozen units, rules must be made and followed if everyone is to be able to get along and the property remain intact.

We can BS til the cows come up, but the facts show that the modern GOP only exists to the extent it does because of these so-called social conservatives. Without the evangelicals and the often hypocritical righteousness, it's a goner....

I am not claiming Democrats are not racists and bigots. People are people. But at least some (maybe most) Democrats think that we'd have a better society if we strive to rid this country of discrimination against anyone.

I don't attend the local gay pride parade, but I certainly take their money when they hire me, buy stuff from me or otherwise trade in the "marketplace". My personal opinion on gay marriage was always conservative - that is, I thought civil unions were fine and dandy just to make the $$ and other benefits fair. But when a new issue like this (marriage equality) comes along, I think just as Jefferson did "Why should I care? - it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg"

[politicsbyothermeans]

I see that you are as confused about SoCons as you are on just about very other single issue upon which you bloviate.

Did you graduate high school? I just can't imagine how anyone so could be so profoundly misinformed.

[shamalam]

So, did this Go-Proud guy turn Democrat, or did he become independent?

Personally, I could NEVER be a Democrat. The Democratic party seems to me to just be a bunch of power-hungry politicians willing to eat any turd in the punch bowl as long as it gets them elected. That is not principles, that is tactics. Democratic politicians don't believe one word they say, but they are very good at exploiting the seams of society and splitting off enough votes to get elected. I am baffled that a substantial portion of the population can swallow the "War on Women" bullshit, and the "gay marriage" bullshit. How can Democrats, with their very unfriendly to whites attitude, be popular in country that is 72% white? The only explanation that I can come up with is "white guilt", and I think "white guilt" is a function of prosperity, i.e. many whites grew up prosperous. I don't know any white people who grew up blue collar, or poor, who suffer from "white guilt".

Personally, I would CONSIDER being a Republican if they concentrated on fiscal responsibility and dropped all of the social engineering crap, but they won't do that.

I am left being a (small l) libertarian, which I have always been, even before I ever heard the term "libertarian". I just want government to be limited to a very few functions and to leave me the fuck alone.

[John]

IN the end, what is important to you. For this guy, gay rights was the most important issue. So it made sense for him to leave. He should rationally vote Democrat since they deliver on his most important issue. He doesn't get much else. But you never get everything. You just choose what is important and try to get that.

[Edwin]

yeah but it's a sutpid and silly valuation scale, to put that one issue on another level above everything else.

Whoop dee doo, you can get gay married, but the fucking country is now bankrupt and the urban areas have devolved into riot zones.

[Kevin47]

Gay rights usually flourish in nations with massive, centralized governments. See, for example, no country ever.

[XM]

Are the GOP really in trouble, outside of presidential elections? And I wouldn't mind a JFK like Democrat as a president, as unlikely as that will be.

Gay rights and drug legalization are cause celebre, but voters won't base their entire decision just on those two issues. If I had to guess, anywhere between 30-40% of the Dem's own base is opposed to those things. Inversely, not a small amount of GOP voters support those causes.

There can be no such thing as perfect "marriage equality" across the nation. If state X say marriage is between two individuals (homo and hetero) but the polygamy and inter family relationship can only by recognized as "civil union", is everyone there a flaming bigot? What if pot is legal but bestiality is outlawed?

Keep in mind that if you're ok with businesses turning away gays for religious reasons, you're favoring liberty over equality. That's "discrimination" to the left and you're a bigot. Although, it's ok for those folks to support race based admission and oppose school vouchers. What if I don't the government to force me to buy things that doesn't directly affect public safety? No, no bigotry there.

[Kevin47]

I don't understand this. The voters "know" the Republicans are "out of touch", and so are likely to give them back control of the Senate in 2014?

Obama won re-election in 2012 because he was an incumbent in a country that likes incumbency, because Evangelicals stayed home, and because black voters didn't.

I think what has really happened is that this guy has changed what he believes about politics. Almost invariably, the people who yammer about Republican bigotry embrace progressive politics. I don't see how that's a win for limited government.

[RishJoMo]

That dude jsut looks like he is full of himself lol.

http://www.GotsDatAnon.tk

[Robert]

.The Republican leadership is happy with big government as long as they're in charge.
Well, yeah, see, that's always going to be the problem. No matter how small the grass roots would want gov't, to affect it you've got to get your leadership into it, and then you're asking people to take on the job of belittling themselves. Not impossible, as Jorge Amador pointed out about the E. German pols who got elected or re-elected on promises to abolish their own offices (which they then did), but obviously difficult because of the conflict of interest.

[Robert]

While most Republicans are inclusive and welcoming, they tolerate bigotry in their ranks out of fear of losing the votes of a few who are anti-anyone not like them.

This is even more true of the Conservative Party. We take a hit in terms of signatures to get our candidates on the ballot when we endorse blacks, even if it's not the candidate being nominated or if it was a previous election. Potential signers tell me they're signing or not signing on condition we not nominate blacks. The ones most opposed to the blacks & Hispanics are the other "ethnics". Meanwhile I have a non-political "conservative" friend who thinks the party can't really be "conservative" since our chair married a black African.

[Robert]

However, I must say that if we could keep blacks in particular from voting, it would improve the policies of the country significantly. They're a lot more authoritarian on avg. than any other major ethnic group, just look at the polls.

[Patti]

Oh please just stop it. I am so sick and tired of hearing that the GOP has bigots who won't accept people who aren't just like them.

Jimmy, it's YOU who are out of touch. Uh, ever hear of the democrat party? They don't accept anybody who doesn't think exactly like their party leadership. That is, you aren't accepted unless you support abortion, amnesty, radical environmentalism or believe the voter ID laws prevent minorities voting. I don't recall anyone claiming the dems are bigoted.

Wise up...

[craiginmass]

funny, I registered dem when I moved recently and no one called me, mailed or otherwise asked for my opinions or stance on any issues.

Do you really believe what you said above?

If so, you're probably better off heading over to the daily caller or breitbart/drudge as opposed to "Reason".

[sasob]

That's because you aren't supposed to have any opinions, stances, or thoughts of your own. You're just suppose to vote the way they tell you to. It is the Democrats, you know.

[Hyperion]

I am so sick and tired of hearing that the GOP has bigots who won't accept people who aren't just like them.

Well, it's true, there are people like that in the GOP and they can't actually keep their mouth shut about it.

I don't recall anyone claiming the dems are bigoted.

I hear that all of the time.

Both big tent parties are full of bigots and intolerant assholes.

[Kevin47]

So is the guy going to be a Libertarian who advocates small government, or a quasi-independent gadfly who chides Republicans as a guest on MSNBC? Based on the talking points here, I'd wager the latter.

[lap83]

Unfortunately there's no proven way of making other people who identify with your group less bigoted. You really only have two choices for dealing with it:

1. Maintain that you yourself are not a bigot, implying that you can't vouch for other members of your group.

2. Deflect the issue by calling your rivals bigots.

The first one is more honest, let's face it. But the second one seems to work better.

[Martha Cornertrader]

That's a pathetic situation I'll say. bigotry is the worst thing any party can have and to hear the same from the horse's mouth is something to think about seriously. Hope American democracy functions well and all the bigots are cornered in their own parties and not only in GOP itself.

[Kevin47]

Stupid ideas are the worst thing any party can have.

[Rob G]

GOP is finished. Can't see them ever winning another election again unless they fully embrace the 10th amendment and put forward the message that the country has differing views on the issues, and allowing states to make their own decisions is a recipe for peaceful co-existence.

[nrob]

Somehow his tolerant qualm actually begs the GOP to become hypocrites, in the same model as the Democrat party, motto: "say you're for something so long as that something gets us votes"

[sgtipster]

that went down the memory hole once Clinton got caught.

[houses]

While most Republicans are inclusive and welcoming