Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
MNita, just an observation or two. On the whole, I would consider you based on your postings to be a moderately conservative Republican. I don't see you at all as one of the Tea Party extremists. While I am definitely more liberal than you are, I don't think it would be impossible for someone like myself to be able to bridge most of our differences and arrive at the kind of compromises that are necessary to govern a country.
What you often do though is make excuses for the most conservative and libertarian people in the GOP. This is the problem with the modern GOP and the reasonable voices within the Republican Party.
I have made this same observation several times to this particular poster, not because I'm singling her out but because it's obvious that she is not a Tea Party extremist, but is rather one of the more reasonable voices in the party, as you so aptly put it. Yet GOP moderates like this poster continually make allowances and give cover to even the most extreme positions of the far right. It's voices like theirs that need to be heard, not just for the sake of the country, but for the sake of their own party.
I can understand, in a way, why the few remaining moderates in the GOP are fearful of speaking out, though if they are that afraid of standing on their own convictions they shouldn't run for elected office, IMO. But what I can't understand is why the moderate Republicans in the electorate don't speak out. If the so-called RINOs started to see some support from their constituents, maybe it would give them the political courage they need to take their party back from the fringe.
I think many are assuming, because of the press, she is running and will be unbeatable. I also think, like you, she has a lot of baggage, add to it her possible health concerns (I am not saying this will make a difference) and other issues, she might not be a shoe in like so many think. The biggest problem I see, right now, with the Democrats: they are putting so much into her chances they are not focusing on anyone else. This leaves them without a viable candidate if she decides late in the game not to run. The Republicans, on the other hand have several possible candidates. Lets just hope the field doesn't get so crowded we cut off our nose to spite our face.
I know you don't believe in discrimination and wouldn't discriminate. However, I was asking more about what you believe the law should be rather than your own perosnal opinion.
Do you believe an employer should have the ability to discriminate or should they be prevented by law from doing so? Do you believe the current law on discrimination in the workplace should be expanded to include sexual orientation or should it continue to be legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace?
Again this is not about what you would personally do, if you would personally discriminate because I know you wouldn't. This is about if you think it should be legal or illegal to do so under the law.
You asked me before if I believe in discrimination, I said no; do I think the law should be amended to cover sexual orientation: as for hiring or discriminating because of someone's sexual orientation? yes, it should be amended as long as it doesn't open up a can of worms, with law suits all over the place. The problem with all this is: people do not get hired and then they scream discrimination. This happens with age discrimination as well. It is hard to prove, but it doesn't stop the law suits which can be very costly for corporations.
You asked me before if I believe in discrimination, I said no; do I think the law should be amended to cover sexual orientation: as for hiring or discriminating because of someone's sexual orientation? yes, it should be amended as long as it doesn't open up a can of worms, with law suits all over the place. The problem with all this is: people do not get hired and then they scream discrimination. This happens with age discrimination as well. It is hard to prove, but it doesn't stop the law suits which can be very costly for corporations.
Reason why I was asking has to do with Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act as well as the recent legislation in the Senate. Enough Republicans voted or it to avoid a filibuster, however the vast majority of Republican Senators voted against it, voted against having a final vote and voted against even opening debate on including sexual orientation in the anti-discrimination law. The bill is likely going nowhere in the House. It likely has enough support to pass, but Boehner has said he will not let it come up for a vote since the majority of the GOP Caucus is against it. Sickening.
Reason why I was asking has to do with Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act as well as the recent legislation in the Senate. Enough Republicans voted or it to avoid a filibuster, however the vast majority of Republican Senators voted against it, voted against having a final vote and voted against even opening debate on including sexual orientation in the anti-discrimination law. The bill is likely going nowhere in the House. It likely has enough support to pass, but Boehner has said he will not let it come up for a vote since the majority of the GOP Caucus is against it. Sickening.
I know that and I understand where you are coming from: but I also heard the reason being given for not supporting it, that too I can see. Of course who really knows the reason someone supports or does not support an issue. We can say one thing, but down deep mean something totally different.
I know that and I understand where you are coming from: but I also heard the reason being given for not supporting it, that too I can see. Of course who really knows the reason someone supports or does not support an issue. We can say one thing, but down deep mean something totally different.
There is no reason whatsoever why sexual orientation shouldn't be added to our anti-discrimination statutes. This should be one of the least controversial bills in Washington and should pass pretty much unanimously. The fact 3/4 of the Republicans in the Senate are against it and likely more in the House (Bohener is refusing to allow a vote) just underscores how deep the problem is for the GOP.
I know that and I understand where you are coming from: but I also heard the reason being given for not supporting it, that too I can see. Of course who really knows the reason someone supports or does not support an issue. We can say one thing, but down deep mean something totally different.
What reasons are you hearing for not supporting it that you feel are justified?
His policies are almost identical to his fathers. To say otherwise is pure ignorance.
He's quite a bit more "mainstream" compared to other tea party Republicans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
