|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Nov 4, 2008 21:46:54 GMT -6
I expected an Obama blowout in the weeks leading up to tonight, and now that it's over, I think we should all acknowledge and realize this is how the cycle should work to keep we the proles in our place.
There was a big rightward swing of the pendulum in the early 2000's. Now there is a big leftward swing of the pendulum. 2010 will probably see it start to move the other way. This election was particularly important, though, because the next president will appoint a few Supreme Court justices to replace the 4 aging liberal justices. The 4 conservative justices have some time left on the bench, so they're not that big of an issue.
Had McCain won and been given an opportunity to appoint one more Supreme Court justice, Roe v. Wade could have been overturned, and the single biggest rallying point of the Republican Party would have been lost. The results of that could have been disastrous for the Republican Party. Instead of focusing on the issues that will impact most of our daily lives, such as oh say, the tens of trillions of dollars of pension, Social Security and Medicare liabilities those of us who are 20 or 30 somethings will face as the baby boomers retire, the Republicans will have a new wave of pro-abortion, "activist" judges to go after and the cycle of big government will continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Nov 5, 2008 21:26:00 GMT -6
It's not at all good for the republicans, but I'll play along. If they're smart, they'll try to be a bit more centrist, and not rely so much on the "born agins." They are not the party that can claim the moral high road. Their best bet is to stick with strong fiscal policy. That is their greatest strength. So, in a sense, I agree with you. Americans are rightly sick of Palin, talk of abortion, gay people as bad, evolution as a belief, and global warming as a left wing plot. America has moved beyond this idiocy. Republicans probably can win again with smart fiscal policy, not crazy pseudo-moral crap. Republicans have also lost their grip on being the "great protector" party with the Iraq debacle. It will take some time to recover from that massive mistake. Quite awhile. The Union states have spoken, and taken a few confederate ones along. Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Nov 5, 2008 22:02:02 GMT -6
It's not at all good for the republicans, but I'll play along. If they're smart, they'll try to be a bit more centrist, and not rely so much on the "born agins." They are not the party that can claim the moral high road. Their best bet is to stick with strong fiscal policy. That is their greatest strength. So, in a sense, I agree with you. Americans are rightly sick of Palin, talk of abortion, gay people as bad, evolution as a belief, and global warming as a left wing plot. America has moved beyond this idiocy. Republicans probably can win again with smart fiscal policy, not crazy pseudo-moral crap. Republicans have also lost their grip on being the "great protector" party with the Iraq debacle. It will take some time to recover from that massive mistake. Quite awhile. The Union states have spoken, and taken a few confederate ones along. Enjoy. Racer, the irony of it all is that Florida, Cali, and Arizona voted against gay marriage and on top of that, Team O bama is against it as well. Also, Arkansas voted against allowing gays to adopt children. So much for it being just an evangelical, right wing issue. And Anthropogenic Global Warming??? HAHAHEHEHAHA! Stay tuned. Edit: Hey, nice work, ASS. Everytime that O bama is typed, the word President will automatically preceed it. I always knew you were respectful to The Presidency. Kudos. |
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Nov 6, 2008 15:25:43 GMT -6
iaammrassumption,
Where did I talk about gay marriage? I noted that Repubs generally make homosexuality a talking point. Try manipulating that truth, you cynical turd.
PRESIDENT OBAMA will talk about important issues. And yes, global warming MAY (oh the shock for the workingman) may have some strong human influence.
Now, why don't you go lift something. You're thinking too hard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Nov 6, 2008 19:25:40 GMT -6
"It's not at all good for the republicans, but I'll play along. If they're smart, they'll try to be a bit more centrist"......Racer[/i][/size][/color]
Moving to the left is what got them into trouble in the first place. They lost their entire base by pulling that trick and only picked up minimal independent and left votes. It is still a Conservative Country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Nov 6, 2008 19:38:45 GMT -6
"It's not at all good for the republicans, but I'll play along. If they're smart, they'll try to be a bit more centrist"......Racer [/i][/size][/color] Moving to the left is what got them into trouble in the first place. They lost their entire base by pulling that trick and only picked up minimal independent and left votes. It is still a Conservative Country.[/quote] Did you follow the election? Try to keep up. I know you live in a confederate state that voted RED, but that clearly wasn't the whole picture! Tennessee is NOT the "real America" as the repubs would have us believe. It is just one part of America. Real America came out and voted in droves. When that happens, republicans stand a good chance of losing elections. I stood in a long line in order to vote. Many ot the people were young and educated. That's usually a bad sign for repubicans. I'm saying that conservatives make their strongest case when they appeal to individual's rights to keep their own money. They rightly speak to the power of the free market, and limited taxation. When they speak to individual liberty, they also make sense. When they harp on Obama as a terrorist, Palin as experienced, gays as bad, global warming is a myth, then they just look stupid. America is conservative. Okay, maybe. However, a dem majority senate, house, and of course PRESIDENT OBAMA may disagree with you, Chief! |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Nov 6, 2008 23:02:52 GMT -6
"It's not at all good for the republicans, but I'll play along. If they're smart, they'll try to be a bit more centrist"......Racer [/i][/size][/color] Moving to the left is what got them into trouble in the first place. They lost their entire base by pulling that trick and only picked up minimal independent and left votes. It is still a Conservative Country.[/quote] Did you follow the election? Try to keep up. I know you live in a confederate state that voted RED, but that clearly wasn't the whole picture! Tennessee is NOT the "real America" as the repubs would have us believe. It is just one part of America. Real America came out and voted in droves. When that happens, republicans stand a good chance of losing elections. I stood in a long line in order to vote. Many ot the people were young and educated. That's usually a bad sign for repubicans. I'm saying that conservatives make their strongest case when they appeal to individual's rights to keep their own money. They rightly speak to the power of the free market, and limited taxation. When they speak to individual liberty, they also make sense. When they harp on President Obama as a terrorist, Palin as experienced, gays as bad, global warming is a myth, then they just look stupid. America is conservative. Okay, maybe. However, a dem majority senate, house, and of course PRESIDENT President Obama may disagree with you, Chief![/quote] Your missing the point Racer. I read an Ann Coulter article that said every time a republican goes to the center they lose. Period. If they stay on the right, no matter how far that right may be they are usually going to do pretty damn good. With the exception being this year with Obama getting alot of the first timers and hispanics. Bush BARELY won in 04' because he was going to the center. The big thing that helped him in 04' was the fact that the US has NEVER kicked out a president in a war during an election year. If not for that I think Kerry wins it. If Mccain would have been more to the right Obama would have still won but it would have been a lot closer. As far as Palin being stupid or whatever if you take an honest look and compare her to Biden she looks like a freaking genius. I'll provide a couple links here shortly. |
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Nov 7, 2008 7:05:52 GMT -6
Palin looks like a genius. That's all I need to know.  |
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Nov 7, 2008 7:11:36 GMT -6
Matta,
I understand what the downtrodden conservative bretheren are saying on this board. You do make sense (except for the "palin is a genius" thing). However, my point is that Americans may be growing tired of the far right's crazy religious extremism. I feel, as do MANY others (crazy Man Coulter notwithstanding) that the strongest appeal of the republican party is fiscal conservativism. They have a very, very strong card to play there. However, when they get all caught up in things like "evolution is a plot" kinds of things, they lose a lot of us. You may be right, though. Maybe there are enough people out there that eat the shit up when times are good. Dixieland still does. I really don't think I'm missing any point. It's all a matter of perspective, and I think Palin's whacky brand of conservativism, including her religious beliefs and lack of knowledge about world affairs, may have cost you the election to a certain extent. That, and the war....and of course the tanking economy....
The Kerry-Bush election was an interesting one on many levels. First, Kerry was a robot, and not a strong candidate for the dems, in my opinion. I know many people that threw their hands in the air for that election. When the dems have a strong candidate, run a good campaign, it's a little different story.
You made a good point about this election providing some exceptions to the formula, given the fact that a lot of blacks and hispanics vote. That actually may support my point a bit. If that population votes, and is growing, the old formula for a Conservative win may become less relevant, will it not?
I respect your opinion, though, and no one can prove either perspective beyond doubt. So, don't subject us to an Ann Coulter article!
Go hawks.
|
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Nov 7, 2008 10:41:25 GMT -6
iaammrassumption, Where did I talk about gay marriage? I noted that Repubs generally make homosexuality a talking point. Try manipulating that truth, you cynical turd. PRESIDENT President Obama will talk about important issues. And yes, global warming MAY (oh the shock for the workingman) may have some strong human influence. Now, why don't you go lift something. You're thinking too hard. Hell, racer. Quit partying with mr. Marsh. You obviously implied gay marriage as you brought up other items associated with the election. "Gays are bad"(gay marriage) comes up during election cycles. My reply addressed that it wasn't an issue with just conservative evangelicals(See lib Cali). An interesting exit poll stat showed that 70% of blacks and close to 60% of hispanics supported prop 8 in Cali. Since you stung me horribly with the workingman and heavy lifting comments I shall have to sting back: You're nothing but a career, mid-level, low paid, pencil pushing hack. Now, go shuffle some papers. |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Nov 7, 2008 11:26:01 GMT -6
Matta, I understand what the downtrodden conservative bretheren are saying on this board. You do make sense (except for the "palin is a genius" thing). However, my point is that Americans may be growing tired of the far right's crazy religious extremism. I feel, as do MANY others (crazy Man Coulter notwithstanding) that the strongest appeal of the republican party is fiscal conservativism. They have a very, very strong card to play there. However, when they get all caught up in things like "evolution is a plot" kinds of things, they lose a lot of us. You may be right, though. Maybe there are enough people out there that eat the shit up when times are good. Dixieland still does. I really don't think I'm missing any point. It's all a matter of perspective, and I think Palin's whacky brand of conservativism, including her religious beliefs and lack of knowledge about world affairs, may have cost you the election to a certain extent. That, and the war....and of course the tanking economy.... The Kerry-Bush election was an interesting one on many levels. First, Kerry was a robot, and not a strong candidate for the dems, in my opinion. I know many people that threw their hands in the air for that election. When the dems have a strong candidate, run a good campaign, it's a little different story. You made a good point about this election providing some exceptions to the formula, given the fact that a lot of blacks and hispanics vote. That actually may support my point a bit. If that population votes, and is growing, the old formula for a Conservative win may become less relevant, will it not? I respect your opinion, though, and no one can prove either perspective beyond doubt. So, don't subject us to an Ann Coulter article! Go hawks. I don't think they are growing tired of the far right as the middle/lower middle class has obviously been talked into thinking that their vote matters. Who knew?  Now that President Obama has accomplished that I think he may have changed the landscape of politics forever. It's simple math really, the middle/lower middle class/poverty level #'s far outweigh the upper middle class/rich people in this country. All President Obama had to do was get them turned on to vote and voila, he's the man. I could see it going this way for quite some time. By that I mean for the next several elections IF the Dems' can keep those first time voters interested in the political process and voting. At least wise until a certain % of voters get sick of the liberal way and by that I mean high taxes, big spending, etc. etc. Which eventually it will happen. It always does. A lot of people would take your argument and turn it around about getting tired of the plot to make everything about evolution. The libs' are trying to control everything in regards to the schools, the county and state politics etc as far as separation of church and state. That really gets the right riled up more than anything. I have no problem with separation of church and state myself but when you try taking the word God out of the Pledge of Allegiance I have a problem. As far as Palin goes she is probably to far right for me, I am more socially conservative and fiscally liberal, but you aren't giving her enough credit. Mccains campaign was dead in the water until he picked Palin to run with him. He was struggling to get anybody on the christian right to side with him. If he would have picked lieberman it would have been a complete disaster. Palin outdrew him on the campaign trail everywhere they went. Why? Because the far right wing really believed in what she had to bring to the table. They think she is the future of the party and are already talking about her run in 2012. I personally would go with Bobby Jindal of La,. If he runs and picks Palin as a running mate they will give President Obama a run for their money, much more so than Mccain ever could have. HEre is an Ann Coulter article on Mccain. Actually a very good read and while I think Coulter is a nut myself I couldn't agree more with it. www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29385#continueAHere is the one about the idiot Biden and how he continually got free passes from the liberal media compared to Palin. It also is a very good read. www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28942 |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Nov 7, 2008 12:01:46 GMT -6
A lot of people would take your argument and turn it around about getting tired of the plot to make everything about evolution. The libs' are trying to control everything in regards to the schools, the county and state politics etc as far as separation of church and state. That really gets the right riled up more than anything. I have no problem with separation of church and state myself but when you try taking the word God out of the Pledge of Allegiance I have a problem. Ah yes... those two words that weren't in place for the first 62 years of the pledge's existence... then added 54 years ago when a president unequivocally unseparated "church & state" by endorsing legislation that added those words to the pledge. I'm waiting on you idiots on the right to start waving the flag that prevents the removal of the "H" from Jesus H Christ. (because you know... God/Jeebus cares deeply about this shit... and doesn't care at all about humanity towards others or helping out those in need) |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Nov 7, 2008 13:27:42 GMT -6
They think she is the future of the party and are already talking about her run in 2012. I personally would go with Bobby Jindal of La,. If he runs and picks Palin as a running mate they will give President President Obama a run for their money, much more so than Mccain ever could have. Palin is not the future of the party. Keep in mind, Matta, that women's looks are depreciating assets. But for her being so easy on the eyes, Palin really didn't bring anything to the table. Once her looks go away, she's toast. As for Jindal or any Republican candidate, the pendulum always swings, and it will swing again, but to say anyone from the Republican Party can make a run at Obama in 2012 is incredibly premature. The business/credit cycle has a great deal of movement on its own, separate from the political cycle, and that will be the big determinant in what happens. When Dubya came in, there were clearly cracks forming in the economy as the tech bubble was bursting, but by 2004, the economy was pretty strong. If that cycle happens for Obama, he could find himself laying down a Reagan-Mondale type ass whooping on the Republicans' sacrifical lamb in 2012. |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Nov 7, 2008 14:17:59 GMT -6
They think she is the future of the party and are already talking about her run in 2012. I personally would go with Bobby Jindal of La,. If he runs and picks Palin as a running mate they will give President President President Obama a run for their money, much more so than Mccain ever could have. Palin is not the future of the party. Keep in mind, Matta, that women's looks are depreciating assets. But for her being so easy on the eyes, Palin really didn't bring anything to the table. Once her looks go away, she's toast. As for Jindal or any Republican candidate, the pendulum always swings, and it will swing again, but to say anyone from the Republican Party can make a run at President Obama in 2012 is incredibly premature. The business/credit cycle has a great deal of movement on its own, separate from the political cycle, and that will be the big determinant in what happens. When Dubya came in, there were clearly cracks forming in the economy as the tech bubble was bursting, but by 2004, the economy was pretty strong. If that cycle happens for Obama, he could find himself laying down a Reagan-Mondale type ass whooping on the Republicans' sacrifical lamb in 2012. ' I agree about 2012. I sent my uncles an e-mail saying if Obama does what he says he is going to do, instead of being Pelosi's bitch, and govern towards the middle then he will keep a lot of people happy and his popularity will grow and it will no doubt be impossible to beat him. Of course he will have the left-wing freaks like Socal pissed off because he wouldn't be following their destroy anything right agenda but hey, you never know. IF he goes sharply towards the left like his voting record indicates, that's what happens when you are the most liberal senator, then he will piss off all those moderate republicans and independents that put his ass in office and I predict he will be one and done. I really think Jindal will run. I read somewhere he was talking about running in 08' but changed his mind. If the republicans put the right 2 people together they could make a run at it. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Nov 7, 2008 14:46:46 GMT -6
Once Lehman went under and the whole credit market really blew up, the Republicans' shot was gone. The bad stock market and frozen credit markets from late September to October sealed the election, no one could have beaten the Dems this year, no matter who they put out there. I don't really know anyone who had McCain as a top choice in the primaries, so I still don't know how the hell he got the nod. If the economy is strong in 2011, Jindal would be very wise to stay away because he would not stand a chance in hell in 2012.
|
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Nov 7, 2008 16:24:06 GMT -6
Matta, I understand what the downtrodden conservative bretheren are saying on this board. You do make sense (except for the "palin is a genius" thing). However, my point is that Americans may be growing tired of the far right's crazy religious extremism. I feel, as do MANY others (crazy Man Coulter notwithstanding) that the strongest appeal of the republican party is fiscal conservativism. They have a very, very strong card to play there. However, when they get all caught up in things like "evolution is a plot" kinds of things, they lose a lot of us. You may be right, though. Maybe there are enough people out there that eat the shit up when times are good. Dixieland still does. I really don't think I'm missing any point. It's all a matter of perspective, and I think Palin's whacky brand of conservativism, including her religious beliefs and lack of knowledge about world affairs, may have cost you the election to a certain extent. That, and the war....and of course the tanking economy.... The Kerry-Bush election was an interesting one on many levels. First, Kerry was a robot, and not a strong candidate for the dems, in my opinion. I know many people that threw their hands in the air for that election. When the dems have a strong candidate, run a good campaign, it's a little different story. You made a good point about this election providing some exceptions to the formula, given the fact that a lot of blacks and hispanics vote. That actually may support my point a bit. If that population votes, and is growing, the old formula for a Conservative win may become less relevant, will it not? I respect your opinion, though, and no one can prove either perspective beyond doubt. So, don't subject us to an Ann Coulter article! Go hawks. I don't think they are growing tired of the far right as the middle/lower middle class has obviously been talked into thinking that their vote matters. Who knew? Now that President President Obama has accomplished that I think he may have changed the landscape of politics forever. It's simple math really, the middle/lower middle class/poverty level #'s far outweigh the upper middle class/rich people in this country. All President President Obama had to do was get them turned on to vote and voila, he's the man. I could see it going this way for quite some time. By that I mean for the next several elections IF the Dems' can keep those first time voters interested in the political process and voting. At least wise until a certain % of voters get sick of the liberal way and by that I mean high taxes, big spending, etc. etc. Which eventually it will happen. It always does. A lot of people would take your argument and turn it around about getting tired of the plot to make everything about evolution. The libs' are trying to control everything in regards to the schools, the county and state politics etc as far as separation of church and state. That really gets the right riled up more than anything. I have no problem with separation of church and state myself but when you try taking the word God out of the Pledge of Allegiance I have a problem. As far as Palin goes she is probably to far right for me, I am more socially conservative and fiscally liberal, but you aren't giving her enough credit. Mccains campaign was dead in the water until he picked Palin to run with him. He was struggling to get anybody on the christian right to side with him. If he would have picked lieberman it would have been a complete disaster. Palin outdrew him on the campaign trail everywhere they went. Why? Because the far right wing really believed in what she had to bring to the table. They think she is the future of the party and are already talking about her run in 2012. I personally would go with Bobby Jindal of La,. If he runs and picks Palin as a running mate they will give President President Obama a run for their money, much more so than Mccain ever could have. HEre is an Ann Coulter article on Mccain. Actually a very good read and while I think Coulter is a nut myself I couldn't agree more with it. www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29385#continueAHere is the one about the idiot Biden and how he continually got free passes from the liberal media compared to Palin. It also is a very good read. www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28942Matta, Please tell me when your taxes go up in the next 4 years. Also, when you get that tax cut from Obama....do the patriotic thing and send it back to Uncle Sam. |
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Nov 7, 2008 20:17:18 GMT -6
iaammrassumption, Where did I talk about gay marriage? I noted that Repubs generally make homosexuality a talking point. Try manipulating that truth, you cynical turd. PRESIDENT President President Obama will talk about important issues. And yes, global warming MAY (oh the shock for the workingman) may have some strong human influence. Now, why don't you go lift something. You're thinking too hard. Hell, racer. Quit partying with mr. Marsh. You obviously implied gay marriage as you brought up other items associated with the election. "Gays are bad"(gay marriage) comes up during election cycles. My reply addressed that it wasn't an issue with just conservative evangelicals(See lib Cali). An interesting exit poll stat showed that 70% of blacks and close to 60% of hispanics supported prop 8 in Cali. bince you stung me horribly with the workingman and heavy lifting comments I shall have to sting back: You're nothing but a career, mid-level, low paid, pencil pushing hack. Now, go shuffle some papers. Turd, What's your definition of low paid? You seem to have a lot of passion about gay marriage that I lack. I say you win that argument. (sound of papers shuffling). Don't you think that by and large, issues such as homosexuality have been predominantly right-wing issues over time? Or, do you just like to disagree with me because you can't stop yourself? (more papers shuffling). I'm just messin' with ya, Turd. You really should toughen up. PEACE! We really should be enjoying the end of the stupid Bush years, in harmony, brother. C'mon, I'll let you fix my stuff! |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Nov 7, 2008 21:20:53 GMT -6
Hell, racer. Quit partying with mr. Marsh. You obviously implied gay marriage as you brought up other items associated with the election. "Gays are bad"(gay marriage) comes up during election cycles. My reply addressed that it wasn't an issue with just conservative evangelicals(See lib Cali). An interesting exit poll stat showed that 70% of blacks and close to 60% of hispanics supported prop 8 in Cali. bince you stung me horribly with the workingman and heavy lifting comments I shall have to sting back: You're nothing but a career, mid-level, low paid, pencil pushing hack. Now, go shuffle some papers. Turd, What's your definition of low paid? You seem to have a lot of passion about gay marriage that I lack. I say you win that argument. (sound of papers shuffling). Don't you think that by and large, issues such as homosexuality have been predominantly right-wing issues over time? Or, do you just like to disagree with me because you can't stop yourself? (more papers shuffling). I'm just messin' with ya, Turd. You really should toughen up. PEACE! We really should be enjoying the end of the stupid Bush years, in harmony, brother. C'mon, I'll let you fix my stuff! Stop shufflin' those darn papers. You can't hear the nonsense your spouting. I did/do agree that it's more of a right wing political issue-especially around election time. I just pointed out a bit of irony. Who brought the subject of gays up in this thread? I'm all for equality in the eyes of the state. This article pretty much sums up my feelings. www.huffingtonpost.com/noah-manne/marriage-civil-emandem-re_b_139702.html Hey, I'd love to fix your crap if you can afford it. Never turn down business. I'll send some guys right over. Whatever happened to that nice racer boy? The one who would delete his own posts because he didn't wan't to be mean. Your newly displayed attitude is very marsh-esque. P.S. What do you think of that article? |
|
|
|
Post by cmonhox on Nov 7, 2008 21:46:40 GMT -6
I'll be honest and say upfront I haven't read in there entirety every post above this. Apologize in advance if I'm restating something already posted.
I agree with BTR in that I think this will in the end be good for pubs. It seems like they've went away from everything right wing. They had 8 years to make their mark on moral and fiscal policies... .....8 long years and accomplished exactly zero, they have NOTHING to show for those 8 yeas.
In 8 years, they expanded gov't and spending & did nothing to address any moral stances the majority of their party prob. stand for. That isn't going to cut it with most.
And now they'll get their timeout for the next 8 years -- they'll have time to refocus and get their crap straightened out. I don't see them winning in 2012.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Nov 7, 2008 21:54:49 GMT -6
I like the article. I agree with it.
I haven't exhaustively considered the topic of "gay marriage" versus "gay union" but I think the article makes some compelling points.
I believe they should have the same civil rights as heterosexuals.
My original point was that many of us have grown tired of the far-right's tired platform. Homosexuality as morally "bad" has been a part of that far-right evangelical platform for quite some time. I agree that the recent events in California are ironic. Feel better?
I think that Americans want to talk about the economy, the stupid war, and bringing our country back to respectability in the community of nations. You may disagree, and that's fine. You can also refer to the election results as a reference.
What was your definition of low income, again? Just curious. I'm wondering if staying at the Program Director level will doom me, and how fast will I need to push for a VP or COO job?
My wife, on the other hand, is doomed to be a paper shuffler for life, as she is a psyD (psychologist). They just talk and write. No work at all.
Gotta go get some sleep and decide if I'm driving to Iowa City in the am. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Nov 7, 2008 23:00:41 GMT -6
I like the article. I agree with it. I haven't exhaustively considered the topic of "gay marriage" versus "gay union" but I think the article makes some compelling points. I believe they should have the same civil rights as heterosexuals. My original point was that many of us have grown tired of the far-right's tired platform. Homosexuality as morally "bad" has been a part of that far-right evangelical platform for quite some time. I agree that the recent events in California are ironic. Feel better? I think that Americans want to talk about the economy, the stupid war, and bringing our country back to respectability in the community of nations. You may disagree, and that's fine. You can also refer to the election results as a reference. What was your definition of low income, again? Just curious. I'm wondering if staying at the Program Director level will doom me, and how fast will I need to push for a VP or COO job?My wife, on the other hand, is doomed to be a paper shuffler for life, as she is a psyD (psychologist). They just talk and write. No work at all. Gotta go get some sleep and decide if I'm driving to Iowa City in the am. Cheers. Just playing with you. I have no idea what I would consider to be a low paid pencil pusher/paper shuffler and have nothing against said pusher/shuffler. I'm sure your doing just fine. Hope you make it to Kinnick. I was scheduled to be there but had to do some last minute fixin'. Maybe see you on HN tommorrow if you don't make it. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Nov 9, 2008 21:20:35 GMT -6
My original point was that many of us have grown tired of the far-right's tired platform. Homosexuality as morally "bad" has been a part of that far-right evangelical platform for quite some time. I agree that the recent events in California are ironic. Feel better? Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, the most anti-gay piece of federal legislation of the past generation. There's a reason my brother votes Republican: He can have no rights and higher taxes (Dem position on "rich" guys like him) or he can have no rights and slightly lower taxes (Repub position). |
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Nov 10, 2008 19:06:08 GMT -6
My original point was that many of us have grown tired of the far-right's tired platform. Homosexuality as morally "bad" has been a part of that far-right evangelical platform for quite some time. I agree that the recent events in California are ironic. Feel better? Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, the most anti-gay piece of federal legislation of the past generation. There's a reason my brother votes Republican: He can have no rights and higher taxes (Dem position on "rich" guys like him) or he can have no rights and slightly lower taxes (Repub position). Wouldn't you agree that the powerful evangelical movement is pretty "anti-gay"? C'mon. |
|
