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.
OK - I don't have a specific answer to the OP's question (because I'm wondering the same thing), but I do have a couple of thoughts about the discussion so far:
1. The OP specifically asked everyone NOT to go off on tangents about abortion or gay marriage. Understandably, one might have to very briefly or lightly touch on each subject simply explain a train of thought to support his/her case, but a few individuals have used this thread as an opportunity to get on their soapboxes about both of those hot-button issues.
For the sake of those of us who are looking for an interesting, lively (civil) political discussion - your detailed comments are inflammatory and not relevant to the topic. There are plenty of gay marriage and abortion threads where you can discuss it ad nauseum and try to convince everyone else why you are right and they are wrong - please step down off the cross and get back on topic. K. Thx.
2. To the posters who have repeatedly tried to refute the OP's statement about Republican/Democrat standings on social issues by reciting voting records - those arguments really don't hold much water. Come on people - we're all intelligent and well-informed enough to know that no politician EVER votes 100% in line with how they feel about social issues. We ALL know that abortion and gay marriage in particular are such hot topics, that MANY folks who hold political offices tend to skew their votes based on public opinion and the 24-hour news cycle because they want to get re-elected.
As much as I would love to believe that all politicians are in office for purely altruistic reasons, and will fight to the death to uphold their principles (or the principles of their constituents), I'm realistic enough to understand that concept is as likely as John Boehner and Barack Obama sitting around together holding hands singing "Kumbaya."
I think what we're really talking about here is the empirical knowledge that we all have about general stated preferences of conservatives on social issues, and how that appears to fly in the face of their general stated political policies of smaller, less intrusive government. I'm not referring to voting records, just the juxtaposition of stated (or implied) social and political positions of conservatives.
Here - I'll throw my hat into the ring using one of the hot-button issues in (what I think is) a manner more conducive to productive discussion:
Someone who is pro choice usually says "the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I can or can't do with my body." Typical conservative counter argument - "it's not just your body - it's also infringing on the rights of an unborn child, which are protected by the Constitution." To simplify - the government should be able to interfere when your choice infringes on someone else's right to life. OK - fair'nuff. Let's carry that logic train forward just a bit...
Most children are almost exclusively dependent on their parents to provide them with nutrition (especially younger children). Why are most conservatives NOT in favor of stronger legislation to limit salt/trans fat/HFCS content of foods? Their general stated answer - "the government shouldn't legislate what I do/don't put in my body." OK - fair'nuff. What about your kid? If you make crappy food choices for your kid (because you want the government to stay out of it and let you make your own choices), which then leads to childhood obesity, chronic health problems as an adult, and (ultimately) an untimely death from coronary disease - isn't that infringing on the kid's right to a healthy life?
Again, when you strip away all the dramatic bloody fetus pictures, aren't we still talking about "the government should be able to interfere when your choice infringes on someone else's right to life?"
I'm liberal and I hate the police. Not all liberals feel the same way.
Most liberals feel that drug laws are either too strict or should be abolished. This doesn't mean liberals like heroin. It just means liberals think rules against it are too strict.
Besides, the illegality of drugs only creates an underground market that's very damaging. People are shot over illegal drugs BECAUSE they're illegal. No one is shooting each other over alcohol (not since prohibition). If you hate drug violence, you should support legalization.
Conservatives want less government regulation of BUSSINSS and more government regulation of individuals.
Liberals want more government regulation of business and less government regulation of individuals.
Conservatives like cops, the FBI, drug laws, laws against abortion, laws against gays getting married, etc. It's liberals who don't.
Conservatives don't like welfare programs, LINK cards, anti-trust laws, laws about where a business can dump toxic waste, etc. It's liberals who want more of these kinds of laws.
That's why.
I was a cop for many years in one the largest departments in the united states. suprisingly "most" cops do not favor more governement regulation on anything whether its more gun control from liberals or law's against pot from conservatives.. Out of 100 cops I think you would be hardpressed to find 5 that actually care whether or not someone is smoking a joint..
However it is a profession and we as professionals HAVE to do our job. We are consitantly watched through a microscope and as such most of us are broken and conform to the system..
granted some departments by default have to secure their own profession.. I am sure the IRS would be against repealing income taxes as they would most likely lose their job.. same goes for DEA who probably feel as though they are doing good... but like I said when comes down to the individual at least my experience most lawenforcement are liberatarian..
Working for one of the largest departments in a city also means we have lots of crime and some of the strictess gun laws.. OF which in my honest experience have only disarmed the honest citizens..
As for drug related crime... we spend billions investigating, enforcing, presecuting, and incarcirating non violent drug offenders... we could take half that money and use it for education and treatment and we would be better off overall..
You might hear chiefs of police and those that are more or less working in a more political arena to reinforce whats popular like gun laws and "war on drugs" and stuff like that.. but the reality is very different.
And you also say "its liberals who dont" well dont forget about liberatarians... they also do not support non violent drug laws but do support the right to carry a firearm..
too many of you look at things as black and white, right and left, republican vs democrat but the reality again is very different..
You can argue all you want but it is BOTH liberals and CONSERVATIVES that are destroying this country.. You keep asking for more government involvement and more and more..
remember that Communism is the ideals of BOTH the left and the right and as long as we keep asking for more from BOTH the left and the right the worse things will get!
I was a cop for many years in one the largest departments in the united states. suprisingly "most" cops do not favor more governement regulation on anything whether its more gun control from liberals or law's against pot from conservatives..
Gun control is the peculiar exception to the rule. Liberals usually want less regulation of individuals though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flycessna
And you also say "its liberals who dont" well dont forget about liberatarians... they also do not support non violent drug laws but do support the right to carry a firearm..
Libertarians also want less regulation of business and want to get rid of things like unemployment insurance and minimum wage. I'm not down with that.
Another thread presuming to "know' what lies in the hearts of conservatives.
1. I am pro choice. Have all the abortions you want. I am opposed to late term abortions, as the medical evidence from a physiological standpoint shows absolute perceptions of pain and developed neural pathways- i.e. it is murder.
2. I don't mind gays adopting kids if it is a stable home. What the heck- if it provides a kid a better life, who cares. I do oppose gay marriage, as it is changing the laws mostly through judicial fiat. Marriage is a legal contract as well as a cultural custom. The gay agenda is opposing the will of the people in most instances by negating the will of the people via judicial fiat. In short, it is changing the law and generational culture through the tyranny of judicial activism. That is why I oppose gay marriage. (I am not a gay basher- my younger brother is gay).
Opposing the will of the people?? How? If two people of the same gender want to get married, how does that affect you?? It affects people who are against gay marriage because they hate homosexuals, pure and simple. The main problem is, is that people don't like the idea of two men in bed together, and that is what it comes down to. People don't have as much problem with two women together; it's just the idea of two men together...people can't stand that. Allowing two people of the same gender does not affect traditional marriage in any way, in fact it strengthens it...if anything.
As far as the generational, cultural "fiat" of marriage, heterosexuals have been changing the "fiat" for years. Divorce was never suppose to be legal, it is against the bible, and it inflicts immediate expulsion from the church. Divorcees are to be excommunicated. Also, birth control, fidelity, adultery, fornication all against cultural morays as well---However! --Because these specifically affect heterosexual people, these issues are negotiated, and accepted, ...not just to appease the majority, but to appease the church, so it does not lose much of its congregation.
Also, I am not homophobic either, I just don't believe those dastardly gays should be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, or given the same legal rights--thank you.
Ummmmm......I'm registered as a Republican although I'm actually more of a Libertarian.
I'm an Atheist
I am fine with "Civil Unions" for Gays
I'm all for Woman's Rights (pro-abortion)
So much for stereotypes, eh?
This made no sense. You just said yourself that you are much more Libertarian. Just because you are registered as a Rep. doesn't really mean anything. and those values are not held by the Rep. Party as outlined in their platform. So I'm guessing you are a RINO. (Republican in name only)
This made no sense. You just said yourself that you are much more Libertarian. Just because you are registered as a Rep. doesn't really mean anything. and those values are not held by the Rep. Party as outlined in their platform. So I'm guessing you are a RINO. (Republican in name only)
It really makes all kinds of sense. You see, there is no such a thing as "Real Republican values". You are making it all up as you go just like everyone else in every political party does. Sure, groupthink happens, but it only goes so far when it comes to real life application. Which is why real republicans get abortions.
I find it weird that people think this. The republicans just had control of Washington for several years. There was no attempt to outlaw abortion. None. Zip. Nada.
It was a democrat that passed the Defense of Marraige Act.
The Republican congress forced his hand, or don't you remember that? clinton was wimpy when it came to defending things like that. the 90s were very different than today, much less support for gay equality back then. clinton obviously felt that the gays could be short term sacrificed to win his 1996 re-election.
Another thread presuming to "know' what lies in the hearts of conservatives.
1. I am pro choice. Have all the abortions you want. I am opposed to late term abortions, as the medical evidence from a physiological standpoint shows absolute perceptions of pain and developed neural pathways- i.e. it is murder.
2. I don't mind gays adopting kids if it is a stable home. What the heck- if it provides a kid a better life, who cares. I do oppose gay marriage, as it is changing the laws mostly through judicial fiat. Marriage is a legal contract as well as a cultural custom. The gay agenda is opposing the will of the people in most instances by negating the will of the people via judicial fiat. In short, it is changing the law and generational culture through the tyranny of judicial activism. That is why I oppose gay marriage. (I am not a gay basher- my younger brother is gay).
doesn't your younger brother deserve the same privileges and responsibilities that you do?
To be even more accurate, yes it was introduced by Bob Barr, but it was passed overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress (85–14: Senate / 342–67 House) which means (since the Republicans only held a small margin of seats) that a majority of Democrats also voted in favour of it.
It was then ruled unconstitutional by a Federal District Court Judge in July of 2010.
Guess who's Attorney General appealed that ruling in October 2010???
Eric Holder ring any bells?
Really? What would you expect a Dem to do? Vote Against the Bill and face the wrath of the voters in their home district? It was a new controversy back then and very few ppl understood it much less sympathized with it. Thankfully, more citizens have become enlightened as time progressed.
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.
