What the Hell Is Wrong with Republicans?

What I was surprised by was how close the vote was.

The cultures changing, it’s only a matter of time, maybe one or two more attempts, and it’ll pass.

The silver lining is how close it came to passing.

Also:

We need more Democrats in the Senate. Get out and vote, even if you don’t think your vote will make a difference. Better yet, drag your friends to the polling booth, tell everyone on Facebook to get off their ass on Election Day, and make them vote with you. It’s sad that even with the majority in Congress, we still can’t accomplish common sense legislation. But the Republicans aren’t capable of governing — they’ve shown that time and time again, especially the past couple years. There’s no reason to keep any of them in power.

Okay:

– Neither party represents my values. So I think I’ll stay home this election just like the last one.
– No, the Democrats are not good at governing either.
– We need less Democrats in office because they’re goons just like the Teabagger assholes and Republicans.

I don’t know whether to blame Republicans for blocking equality to gain votes,

Cold.

or Christians who push this idiotic notion that giving GLBT people the same rights as everyone else will make our society worse,

Warmer. Much warmer actually.

or President Obama for not simply signing an Executive Order to end DADT.

Disco! He is the commander of the military. He can do it but won’t. Unlike health care, it’s the one place he’s constitutionally authorized to make bold moves like that. Yet he won’t do it.

If anyone ever needed proof that he was a Christian, this is it.

You should think the next time you go to the voting booth. Think about how he’s stabbed you all in the back. Ramping up the drug wars, starting secret wars in Africa, keeping the prison in Guantanamo open, dragging his feet on ending the wars, Letting the Wikileaks whistle blower be prosecuted, messing up the internet and Net Neutrality.

“We need more Democrats in the Senate.”

That’s right. It’s not “We need more free thinkers in the Senate, “We need more people in the Senate who value individuality,” or “We need more people in the Senate who are less concerned with a person’s sexual choices and more concerned with protecting the freedom of each individual to decide how to live their own lives or how to spend the money that they earned, and stopping the growth of an ever-expanding Federal Government.”

No. Instead it’s “We need more Democrats.” Tow the party line.

What gets me angriest is the snivelling little worms who complain that they are against DADT, but voted for fillibuster anyway (I’m looking at you Sen. Collins). You want to get away with bigoted votes and have the gall to expect to not be considered anti-gay. Not only to you lack common decency and a true respect for our troops, you don’t even have the courage of your misguided convictions. Strike that. I doubt you even have those convictions. You’re just perfectly willing to exploit and persecute the men and women who shed their blood for you if you think it offers you just a little bit of job security.

In 20 years you will be shifting uncomfortably in chairs while trying to explain/apologize for your votes, just like the men and women who voted against the Civil Rights Act have had to do. But that doesn’t matter, as long as you can keep your job a little longer eh? Who gives a fuck about the jobs, the honor, the sacrifice of soldiers who put their lives on the line for you? Not, you, obviously.

**Deep Breath** I hadn’t vented either…still pissed to the high heavens though. I know we’ll win in the end, but damned if it isn’t frustrating in the meantime.

It seems to me that these anti-gay politicians (the GOP in particular) don’t have an empathetic bone in their body. If they were able to put themselves in the shoes of a patriotic gay/lesbian in the military surely they would be able to see how hateful and irrational this primitive piece of legislation really is.

The only party that will be guaranteed to removed DADT is the Libertarian Party. If you are sick of the games that both the R’s and D’s play, vote Libertarian, the only party to be truly concerned about the rights of all individuals, including atheists and gays.

The majority of Americans want DADT and these a-holes in the Senate can’t even do what the majority of Americans want done.
How sad is that?

The Senate was one called the place where good bills die. Examples like DADT show that.

If neither party represents my views, how could Democrats possibly be the answer?

I find myself most pissed off at the democrats for being spineless pussies and not getting this done.

I don’t count on the R’s to do anything worthwhile; its the Dems that are supposed to be the progressives.

There was a time when McCain would have been behind this bill. But today he is afraid of not looking like a real conservative. He thinks he needs the Tea Party whack-a-loons on his side.

You know, I might be willing to just blame Republicans for being bigoted assholes if Harry Reid didn’t completely politicize the entire thing by not allowing the Republicans any amendments and running through a couple of amendments the Democrats really wanted. It wasn’t just about ending DADT – if that was really the primary goal, they would have thrown the GOP a small bone and gotten it done. Now Reid can sit back and blame the GOP for being obstructionist bigots, because people like you are unwilling to spread the blame to where it’s deserved. There are no innocent parties here.

(Hemant says: Watch video from the Senate floor. Reid said he was willing to let amendments be debated, but there can’t be a discussion on amendments unless debate is *allowed*. Republicans unanimously stifled that from even happening. (And a couple Dems joined them).)

@Silent Service

If he’s wrong, which he is, why stoop to ad homs?

Be a man and challenge his ideas. Don’t act like a little child and call names.

This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much. Some of them are so rude. I want equal rights for them but a lot of them are so unpleasant to be around or listen to.

Isn’t it ineffective now, anyway?

@Alex: Prejudice never goes out of style. As long as people are capable of hate, it’s effective.

It works on progressives, too. ;D

At least my Senators both voted ‘Yea’ even though Jim Webb was one of the ones who said he wouldn’t vote back in May.

Unless the Democrats maintain control of the Senate in November, we’re going to have a hell of a time repealing this godawful act. We need Obama to do his job. This is unconstitutional, mean-spirited, and unfair to our serving men and women, and the ONLY reason anyone’s ever given is related to homophobia.

America once more fails to make me think we’re being more progressive.

Ok, lots

@Alex

Not necessarily. When aiming to take down laws like this you need to create what are known as “circuit splits”, thats divisions between federal circuit courts in how they rule on a law. Then it goes to the Supreme Court who decide on it once and for all.

So in that district it’s null and void, but not everywhere. Another district or two and it’ll force SCOTUS’s hands.

This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much. Some of them are so rude. I want equal rights for them but a lot of them are so unpleasant to be around or listen to.

Way to generalize. Yes, there are going to be GLBT persons who are rude, just as there are rude Christians and rude Atheists. But instead of recognizing that they’re just rude people, you cite their sexual orientation as a means to deny further contact.

VXbinaca,

Gee, I don’t know why we might be a bit rude and short tempered anymore. Having to listen to fundamentalist idiots spout their bigoted thinking day after day while looking down their nose at us leads to a short fuse. Especially when really stupid statements are tossed out by our supposed supporters like, this group should be denied marriage because they might get hurt doing their job and how horrible would that be for their spouse and children. Oh lord, please think of the little children!!! What a bunch of horseshit. I requested Sven’s arguments for his idiotic idea while pointing out some basic flaws in it, but pointing out that he’s a tool when he’s put forth such a stupid idea is a valid point that doesn’t really need additional support.

Too often I hear the argument that you should only attack the idea and not insult the person. Oh don’t use ad homen attacks because you might hurt somebody’s feelings. That’s so rude and child like, you should be a man and not be a meanie like that. Sorry but Sven’s comment was and is patented stupid and he’s and idiot for putting it forward without thinking it through. I’m terribly sorry that I didn’t spell out exactly why he’s an idiot. It seemed sufficiently obvious to me that I figured you’d be able to figure it out.

Oh, and I don’t like dealing with egotistically stuck up straight people who question my manhood. Why just a moment ago one of them made a presumptuous statement about not wanting to deal with homos because some of them are so rude without bothering to check to see if I’m male, female, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, or simply a passionate supporter of LGBT rights. Generalize much dickhead? Oh, and just in case you miss it, you’re a dickhead for generalizing, not just because I feel like tossing ad homen attacks around.

@Silent Service

Wow, just wow. I never questioned your ‘manhood’, wrong M word, it was maturity.

It’s not about their feelings, which really the root of it are yours being gratified by using puerile attacks on people. My objection to ad hom is purely because it turns minds off. Do you really think every person currently against the repeal are like those bigoted politicians you hate so much? Nope. Some of them just need to be talked to calmly and rationally, without the name calling and cursing. Like you’re doing to me.

I almost always prefer calm, rational discussion and explanation to your antics, SS. None of the people on the FA forum are like you.

All I hear from you is how much of a victim you are instead of what you’ll do to help repeal the law. Turn down the volume, stop whining and get to work on repealing it judicially.

I want to see DADT repealed as well. When I point out your methods of arguing against it or dealing with the other side are counter-productive, you amp up what you were doing. Not very effective.

As much as I would like to think electing democrats would help.. It would not. The entire place needs to be cleared out they are all useless and do not have Americans best interests at heart.

I hate this argument. Our leaders quite honestly do believe that they have the best interests of their constituents at heart. But everybody’s has an opinion and they never match exactly. The real problem is that being in power too long leads to the huge egos we see in our politicians. At some point, too many of them come to believe that they are always right, and no amount of evidence or pressure from their own constituents will change their mind. They come to believe that they know what’s best for us unwashed masses and that they have to tend to us like children. That’s the point where you need to vote your representatives out of office.

The funny thing is, everybody always hates Congress, but usually reelects their own representatives because they’re okay. They look after me. If there were actually a threat of voting a majority of Congress Critters out of office, you might see some change. But the truth is, most people like their own Congressman and believe that the problem is everybody else’s Congressman.

“We need more Democrats in the Senate.”

Yeah, good luck with that.

@VXbinaca and SilentService, can we please not turn the thread into a flame war? Pretty please? SilentService, the person arguing against families did not do so in a gay-specific manner. In fact it’s clear they believe that soldiers should not be allowed to marry regardless of the gender of their spouse. This strikes me as not likely to be productive, but certainly not coming from a place of bigotry and certainly not worthy of your condemnation, which I would reserve for the Nays (except Reid, who voted Nay for procedural reasons). VXbinaca, I have a vague memory of issues with you and gays in the past, and saying “This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much” sure is a red warning sign to me, so you shouldn’t be surprised if your position comes off as suspect, though I tend to agree with you about argumentation. However in this thread I don’t think we’re going to find a lot of DADT supporters, so conversion is less the objective than venting, IMO.

VXbinaca,

Obama simply can not order it DADT away. It is the law pass by congress. Obama has the constitutional mandate to enforce DADT, even though he may or may not support such a law. Although it seems like it lately, the executive branch of the government can not simply pick and chose which laws they enforce, and how they enforce the laws.

Nor is it clear that a civilian court has the jurisdiction to overturn this law. The battle over whether the civil courts can decide on this issue would probably take years to decide.

Congress repealing the law might seem like the slowest and messiest way of doing it, but it is really the only way it can be done.

I am disappointed in the Democrats, but the Republicans scare the hell out of me (and I don’t even believe in hell). I don’t want them in power. I am not particularly happy with the Democrats in my area, but damn it, I voted Nader and got Bush. I really don’t want that to happen again. Do you want Sen. Inhofe running the committee dealing with climate change? Do you want McCain chair the armed forces committee? Like it or not, we live in a two party system. And with the Republicans jumping off the deep end (terror babies), I want to do everything I can to keep them from power. Even if that means voting for a less than prefect party.

@Claudia

Then channel anger into a way to repeal the law. That anger is energy and I see a lot of it being wasted here.

And what will it take to show I’m not one of them?

Claudia: There are doubtless other candidates than O’Donnell or Coons with positions more in line with my views (this is an example, since I’m not in that district). In my opinion third party candidates are just as deserving, if not more, of the publicity, votes, and just money that you get when you take an R or a D next to your name.

Hemant, the solution isn’t to advocate voting for more Democrats. We need to find people of all parties (and no party) who match our views, especially ones without the support and arm-twisting influence of the RNC or DNC, and promote them like mad.

A vote for a third-party candidate is never wasted. Even if the candidate loses, the winner sees “These are the people I should court so I can win the next election, too.”

LeAnne:

If your Senator is a Republican, they voted against the bill moving forward.

If your Senator is a Democrat not named Blanche Lincoln or Mark Pryor, they voted for moving forward.

(Reid also voted no, for strictly procedural reasons — you can’t bring it up again later unless somebody who voted no asks to.)

This is why, for all my frustrations with the Democratic Party, we do in fact need more Democrats. At the very least, we need more Senators who aren’t Republicans — the two independents also voted Yes. The parties aren’t the same.

VXbinaca

What a bunch of sanctimonious bullshit. You have no idea of what I do in my community or what I do to work towards getting this crap law repealed. You and I have not had any regular contact and we have not had any major policy discussions that I am aware on here or anywhere else. You want a reasoned debate on this issue but nobody reasonable is coming here to the FA to join in your debate on the issues. Anybody with an open mind here has all ready been convinced that DADT needs repealed. Your smug superiority about remaining above childish name calling while saying many homos are rude just makes you a hypocrite.

Worse, my issue with Sven isn’t that s/he supports DADT (he doesn’t). It was that idiotic statement about not letting military member get married at all. That’s a completely imbecilic statement that completely blows me away. The level of stupidity to put forth such a draconian idea as to basically want to reduce us military members to second class status as a whole is contemptible and shows that Sven is an idiot. Wait; make that third class status as we all ready have restrictions on our Freedom of Speech and Expression while on active duty.

Stop clutching your pearls because you don’t like how I’ve expressed myself VXbinaca and get over yourself.

Can we get a modern discussion system that allows threaded replies? This feels like 1996.

Wow, XV, I didn’t blockquote your whole freaking thing so I must be taking it out of context, right?

First of all, I didn’t recall myself if Silent Service was gay or not so I didn’t jump to the conclusion that he meant gay marriages and frankly in his protest about the ridiculous notion that the military shouldn’t be able to marry as having anything to do with homosexuality. Hell, for that matter, even if he is, I still don’t see that. He raised what I thought was a good protest against the statement that the military shouldn’t marry and/or have kids. In fact, I found nothing to add to it.

But okay…

If he’s wrong, which he is, why stoop to ad homs?

What ad homs? I didn’t see any made.

Be a man and challenge his ideas. Don’t act like a little child and call names.

Here’s the nyah nyah insinuating Silent Service isn’t even a man. Of course, there’s nothing about his name that indicates his gender period but I got that you were calling him immature. You’re the one jumping to the conclusion that I thought you meant feminine. Uh, if I had, my rant to you would have been even longer because as a woman, I’d certainly demand to know why that’s an insult.

This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much. Some of them are so rude. I want equal rights for them but a lot of them are so unpleasant to be around or listen to.

Pure bigotry here.

VXbinaca

Oh look, more sanctimonious bullshit while I was replying. If you call somebody a child and tell them to “be a man”, you’re saying they aren’t a man. And when you didn’t previously know my gender, that’s the stupidest kind of argument you can ever make. That you don’t even understand what you’re saying makes any argument you make just plain not worth listening too. STFU.

I have lunchtime class people so feel free to abuse me while I’m out. But I don’t want VXbinaca worried when I don’t reply to him right away. He might pop the string in his pearl necklace. I have some analog life to attend too.

@muggle, uhh, though I know I’m probably going to regret this, but regarding this:

What ad homs? I didn’t see any made.

Silent Service’s comment opens with “you’re a tool” and closes with “idiot”. If you didn’t see the ad-homs, you didn’t read the comment, I’m afraid.

I can’t believe Senator Reid himself voted nay…. WTF??

President Truman didn’t wait for Congress to act. Unlike Obama, he had balls. As commander in chief, he simply ordered an end to racial discrimination Period. Some old, conservative officers quit, but so what? We got over it. At the very least, Obama could make it clear he doesn’t want DADT enforced. He could do it today. He could have done it on his first day.

re: saltdeezy

He voted no so he could bring it up for vote in the future, it is a procedural maneuver.

I wonder why I’m the only one that thinks of VX as female? Anyway, moving on:

I can’t believe Senator Reid himself voted nay…. WTF??

It was purely a procedural matter. He was of course in favor of repeal, but in the Harry Potter-esque wizardry that is Senate rules, he had to vote against the measure so that it could legally be brought up for a vote again at a later date. Don’t ask me why, but that’s the way it works. I’m guessing it has something to do with him being majority leader?

@VXbinaca

Thank you for finding that link for me. I’m surprised to know that our “democrat” who always votes republican ACTUALLY voted yes.

Claudia:

Basically, the measure can’t be brought up for a vote again unless somebody who voted “no” asks for it to be reconsidered. It doesn’t have to be the Majority Leader, he’s just the one who always does it.

I don’t think blindly voting democrat helps the country. What about the secular Republicans and Libertarians? Most of them are on board with repealing DADT. Moreover, they wouldn’t vote for other dumb things that drive us further into debt.

Obama just needs to do this. Make it so, Number 1.

It’s not so much the Republicans in congress. It’s the Christians that hate gays that install fear in them, worrying more about getting re-elected than doing the right thing. At least 2 of them broke party lines.

And kudos to Al Franken. He’s been a great Senator.

Just because there is this discussion what an ad hominem is.

“You are an idiot” can be no ad hominem, but if the claim is in any way implicitly or explicitly used to dismiss or diminish the views of the other person it absolutely is.

Now there is actually no reason to call anybody an idiot if one does not intend followup judgments to color the debate.

Name calling very often has this very an implicit ad hominem quality, even if the fallacious clause is not spelled out.

McCain: “Lalalalalalalalala!!!! I can’t hear you!”

Hitch,

The difference is that I called Sven an idiot because his view was so easily shown to be stupid. I did not say that his view was stupid because Sven is an idiot. The two concepts are easily confused but not the same.

The same thing goes for VXbinaca. His views are not bad because he’s a homophobic. He is considered to be homophobic because he has a history of making slightly homophobic statements like, “This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much. Some of them are so rude. I want equal rights for them but a lot of them are so unpleasant to be around or listen to.”

Thus calling Sven and idiot for making stupid comments about military people (gay or straight) being allowed to marry, and calling VXbinaca a homophobe for calling homosexuals rude is fair game and not an ad homen attack. They’re just personal observations that you can judge for yourself based on the evidence they have provided.

PLEASE. A democrat in congress?

As a rationalist how can you stand the democrat policies (such as unemployment plans, and health plans)?

What we need are rational thinkers who understand the market, understand psychology, and will be able to make decent choices.

1) Fight for civil liberties
2) Don’t make the health care crisis worse by encouraging the market to have worse care by either a) requiring everyone to get car insurance or b) making a public option
3) Get rid of the silly no-buying-insurance-across state lines law
4) Get rid of silly social programs that are outside the governments job description (which is to protect the liberties of the its people)

blah blah blah

basically – don’t vote republican and don’t vote democrat – neither of them get it right.

” We need more Democrats in the Senate”
Yes. We do need more Democrats because they are the only ones who have the courage to move on this vote. Does anyone think the Republicans will vote “yes” for repeal. If you do you don’t understand politics. But you notice the vote count? The Dems lost 3 votes including Harry Reid who voted “no” for procedural reasons so he could bring the bill back up in December. Which the political climate will be better for repeal.
Democrats brought it up before the election to motivate the base and the Republicans blocked it to motive their base. Easy.

Now, the reason the bill didn’t pass was politics: pure and simple.

I’m either not voting the next couple of times or voting for an unelectable person who represents me. All this voting for the lesser of two evils just gets you the lowest common denominator. If more repubs get into office don’t blame me, offer

Obama
His stance on judicial issues makes him unelectable, never mind cowardice on DADT.

Senate Democrats
The repubs did not need 60 votes to get shit done when they were in power. They are spineless incompetents who might fold to aggressive opponents if they had 80 seats never mind 60. The filibuster is a procedural rule they could get rid of with a simple majority vote. They like it too much to get rid of it.

House Democrats
Just as spineless to repub aggression.

Republicans
Not a chance of getting my vote. I might rethink my view of the supernatural if I found a republican that I could consider voting for.

I hate DADT as much as anyone, but the Dems really shot themselves in the foot on this one. First, why tack it (and not to mention the DREAM act) onto a defense appropriations bill? And second, why not wait for the Pentagon review? We already know the Republicans will jump on any semblance of parliamentary tricks and use it as an excuse to vote no. Instead, put up a simple bill that DADT is repealed, bring it to a vote, and force the Republicans to stand up and say “no, I don’t want LGBT in the military.” If they still all vote No (even if it passes), then a post with this title would be appropriate. As it is, this move was clear pre-election politics, and served only to further polarize the extremes and further disillusion the middle about the possibility of competent government.

Vev,

In my current job for the military (I am a retired military member and a government contractor now) I get stuck sitting through one suicide incident report after another. You talk anecdotally about what you’ve seen, I live and work that shit every day, day after day. I get to see the numbers and have to sign the non-disclosure statements barring me from discussing the details of these briefings. It’s depressing and disturbing the stupid crap they come up with to try to put a bandage on the military’s suicide problem. Baring military personnel from marriage because theoretically somebody might have their emotional wellbeing hurt by somebody’s future suicide/death/divorce/deployment is a flawed and absolutely stupid as a concept. You’re talking about taking a fundamental right away from somebody because of a theoretical emotional trauma that may happen in their future. Everybody who goes through the stress of divorce, or has to sit by and wait for loved ones to return home from high risk jobs is hurt by it. Shouldn’t we ban marriage under that concept? Or perhaps we should ban divorce since that’s a risk factor in suicide? Cops and firefighters also have high divorce rates and high suicide rates. Should we ban them from marriage or eliminate those career paths for civilians and militarize them under your no marriage military? It’s a stupid concept.

It is a stupid argument to deny somebody a fundamental right (see Loving vs. Virginia) because of a theoretical emotional trauma that might be suffered by the persons involved at some unknown point in the future. It is also fundamentally stupid to make military service that much less desirable. We already surrender a portion of our Free Speech and Free Expression rights when we join the military. Those restrictions discourage many qualified personnel from even considering military service. Restricting marriage would mean anybody wanting to stay in the military till retirement would have to give up 20 to 30 years of any potential relationships. How many people will be willing to do that? And how about our military leadership? Flag officers can have service times from right out of high school well into their 60s. You’re asking them to go all the way to actual retirement age unmarried. That’s a wonderful idea. Those 4 star generals and admirals don’t really want to have families. They’ll give up the idea of happy families for love of country. Standing up to defend Sven because you understand how the risks associated with military service have caused some people emotional pain and suffering is idiotic.

I have at home a set of appreciation certificates from President Bill Clinton. They are not for my military service. They are for my service as a military spouse. My wife is also a military retiree. I understand the potential pain of loss and the stress that goes with having a military spouse as well as the stress and emotional hardship of being an active duty member. Try again. Tell me that my three children shouldn’t exist because of some theoretical harm if I’d been killed on a deployment. Tell me we had no right to bring them into the world because we had to move every 2 to 4 years and they went through the pain of having to make new friends all the time. I can comprehend where Sven’s idea comes from, but it is still an indefensibly stupid idea and he is an idiot for making it. You should think about exactly how stupid it is before you defend him.

I will agree with you on Senator Franken. I was not a big supporter before he finally won his seat. But since he took his seat I have become an ever greater fan. Senator Frankin, thank you for your service to us.

Um, hey Samiimas, I don’t think the homophobes actually want us to kiss their asses. Well, maybe some do, but only when we’re on a church sanctioned retreat and in a private motel; but certainly not in public.

Rarian Rakista wrote:

Can we get a modern discussion system that allows threaded replies? This feels like 1996

For the love of Pete, please noooooooooo!

I HATE the threaded format ~ I hate having to click every single individual post just to see it….

Quote the person and/or post you’re responding to and everything’s clear.

If you guys don’t want to vote Democrat or Republican, then vote Libertarian. They want to repeal DADT too, but they don’t have the cons of the Democratic party.

That’s one of the reasons it blows my mind that libertarians, especially atheist libertarians tend to lean to the Republicans.

Not me. I lean slightly left but vote Libertarian whenever possible.

What I really don’t get is gay Republicans. I know some, and they are nice people, and I understand they don’t want to be Democrats, but do they seriously hate themselves so much that fiscal issues trump who they are allowed to be with? And these days, Repubs are crappy with money, too.

So, really, what is the draw to gays for being Republican? It just smacks of self-loathing. Conservative, I might get. But Republicans in 2010 are NOT conservative. They are puppets of the Religious Reich.

BLECCH.

VXbianca said:
“This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much. Some of them are so rude.”

gee…. imagine anyone being rude to YOU, after a comment like that! Niceness streams right out your asshole like sunshine.

Pssst, who sent out the Troll-Signal? Did this get cross posted to LibertarianWackaloon.org?

Libertarian? No thanks. I happened to like it that when I graduated college and couldn’t find work that I could get on welfare and afford to eat and look for work. I’ve always found the “small government” thing to be childish anyway. It’s not the size of the government that makes it effective, it’s how the government is set up.

Also, Libertarians and Republicans have roughly the same economic philosophy. This is what happens economically under each party. I’m not in the 95th percentile (or even 80th), as such, I don’t want those policies.

When are they voting for a “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy for religion?

That would be really cool!
No head-banging, no book-burning (OT/NT), no preaching, no special privileges or non-uniform clothing.

Oh and maybe one for gender?

Hemant:

I don’t know whether to blame Republicans for blocking equality to gain votes, or Christians who push this idiotic notion that giving GLBT people the same rights as everyone else will make our society worse, or President Obama for not simply signing an Executive Order to end DADT.

Holytape mentioned this but it seemed to get lost in the noise. DADT was a law passed by Congress and as such, it cannot be ended by an Executive Order. It can only be repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court. This is not a power held by the Executive Branch.

I’d hate to say something in your blog makes you look ignorant, but, um. This does.

Vene, Libertarians and Republicans do NOT have the same basic economic views. They used to, but Republicans only use “small government” as a talking point – they fund their expensive programs through massive deficit spending instead of the higher taxes and slightly-less-massive deficit spending of the Democrats. There hasn’t been a true small-government Republican in the White House in decades.

Further, calling the idea of small government childish is rather naive. Government taxes suppress economic efficiency – fact. Government spending initiatives distort the free market – fact. Now, governments exist to fill in where free markets fail, so as a society we need to accept some level of inefficiency, some level of distortion in order to allow the government to fill in the gaps. From there, our disagreements simply stem from which, and how many, gaps need to be filled. Believing in less interference and having fewer gaps to fill isn’t childish, it’s a differing viewpoint. The only thing childish here is thinking that your view is the only view.

I am a small government person, economically and socially. That means I think the government shouldn’t be interfering in what people do in their private lives. Whether or not they want to do drugs. Whether or not they want to pay for their sex. Whether or not they worship a god. Who they want to marry (so long as it’s consensual and adult). Are these views childish? Or is it not childish to be small government in the areas you agree with the ideas?

Am I overreacting? Certainly. But your dismissal of an economic philosophy is rather off-putting, and the way you did it makes you sound like you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. If I’m wrong, perhaps we can discuss this like adults instead of just making blanket putdowns on ideas.

Not only do you still not understand what I’m for, you’re making up things I said. Not once did I claim that you were for free markets. Further, I said that governments exist to fill in the gaps where free markets fail… which sounds a lot like the mixed economy you were talking about. You seem to think that A) Republicans and Libertarians have the same economic ideas (wrong) and B) Libertarians are some kind of anarcho-capitalists (again, wrong). You may have cited facts, but what you don’t have is any reading comprehension. That’s okay though, I eagerly await seeing what you pretended I said next.

Maybe Mccain is repeating “that is not the policy” so many times so he can try and convince himself that the lie he’s telling is the truth.

Iceland and Ireland both do quite well on that list posted, so I fail to see how they have no merit. I’m using her data, so don’t accuse me of making crap up. The US is by far the largest country anywhere nearing the top of that list, so yes, wondering if country size has something to do with it is very relevant. Regarding the diversification A) Norway is not nearly as diverse as the US, and B) I merely noted that it was a difference between the two countries. I have no idea if country size or diversity of population or degree of government intervention or recent history of being more technologically and politically advanced (the top twenty-one countries on the list are either in Western Europe, former well-developed colonies of Great Britain or Japan). But I didn’t just take one of those factors, point to the list and say “See? Proof!”

My objection was to her calling people who believe in a small government “childish” – that’s not the same as voting Libertarian, but what the hell, I’ll answer it anyway. Rand Paul is libertarian like the Teabaggers are libertarian. Bob Barr wrote DOMA – I don’t care if he’s repudiated it, he’s DQ’d himself from my ballot.

Ron Paul is a very intelligent man who has a history of putting his religious convictions behind his small-government convictions when it comes to prostitution and the war on drugs, but who hasn’t done that on abortion and has said different things regarding SSM, none of which is what I want to hear from my candidate. Barack Obama is a very intelligent man who, even allowing that we have very differing opinions on how active the government should be in fiscal and monetary policy, does not appear to know what he’s doing economically. He also has actively fought LGBT rights, despite promising to be an advocate for them. In bad economic times, I’d want the fiscally responsible person. In better times, I’d take the guy who, hopefully, would advance the social issues I value.

Best to ignore the ever-ranting old man McCain.
McCain is pretty much lost, fumbling about and is long over due to retire.
He’s having difficulty remembering what he thinks as it changes on a regular basis. I’ve never seen such an extreme barrage of repetitious flip-flopping, and his decline is sad to watch.
He’s gone from an electable liberal Republican in AZ that worked both sides of the aisle, to a conservative Republican, who would begin to pile on with the staunch party of No, and now he resorts to Tea bagging it with newly found anti-immigration and DOMA rantings.

His support on issues and his color of red seems to change with the donor support of the day, and with his attempts to meet the requisites demanded of him, as he jumps through hoops to pass the new Bush era Republican’s litmus tests.

It’s embarrassing to me to watch him dig deeper and deeper, he just needs to stop.

Way to ruin a good Republican.

Actually, my 2 male dogs F**k each other. It is natural, I Swear!!!