archer wrote: No insult intended to Bob.......only his assumption that the Tea Party would appeal to someone who sees social issues as important to the future of this country as economic issues are. Once the Tea Party embraced the far right wing social agenda, I think a lot of moderate Republicans had to make a choice.....cater to the Tea Party and abandon their moderate views....or become independents or even Democrats (horrors). I think the GOP lost a lot of good people, candidates, and voters by allowing the Tea Party tail to wag the Republican dog.
Oh - I didn't think you were trying to insult Bob. And it is certainly not my place to defend him. I was just trying to make a point that sometimes folks get blinded by what they think or see on TV - VS what others thing are real is all. The Tea party is not gay friendly for sure, but Bob is
archer wrote: No insult intended to Bob.......only his assumption that the Tea Party would appeal to someone who sees social issues as important to the future of this country as economic issues are. Once the Tea Party embraced the far right wing social agenda, I think a lot of moderate Republicans had to make a choice.....cater to the Tea Party and abandon their moderate views....or become independents or even Democrats (horrors). I think the GOP lost a lot of good people, candidates, and voters by allowing the Tea Party tail to wag the Republican dog.
Oh - I didn't think you were trying to insult Bob. And it is certainly not my place to defend him. I was just trying to make a point that sometimes folks get blinded by what they think or see on TV - VS what others thing are real is all. The Tea party is not gay friendly for sure, but Bob is
I had a similar discussion with Fred about my not supporting a candidate because of their stand on a woman's right to choose....it isn't about what a candidates personal belief is, we are all entitled to our personal beliefs, but I will base my support for a candidate on what I think they will do with those beliefs. I just cannot support those who wish to impose their personal religious or "moral" beliefs on the nation as a whole, or on a state. It's a deal breaker for me. Same with many other social issues.....
archer wrote: No insult intended to Bob.......only his assumption that the Tea Party would appeal to someone who sees social issues as important to the future of this country as economic issues are. Once the Tea Party embraced the far right wing social agenda, I think a lot of moderate Republicans had to make a choice.....cater to the Tea Party and abandon their moderate views....or become independents or even Democrats (horrors). I think the GOP lost a lot of good people, candidates, and voters by allowing the Tea Party tail to wag the Republican dog.
Oh - I didn't think you were trying to insult Bob. And it is certainly not my place to defend him. I was just trying to make a point that sometimes folks get blinded by what they think or see on TV - VS what others thing are real is all. The Tea party is not gay friendly for sure, but Bob is
I had a similar discussion with Fred about my not supporting a candidate because of their stand on a woman's right to choose....it isn't about what a candidates personal belief is, we are all entitled to our personal beliefs, but I will base my support for a candidate on what I think they will do with those beliefs. I just cannot support those who wish to impose their personal religious or "moral" beliefs on the nation as a whole, or on a state. It's a deal breaker for me. Same with many other social issues.....
That is probably why I lean progressive. Social issues. I understand totally
archer wrote: No insult intended to Bob.......only his assumption that the Tea Party would appeal to someone who sees social issues as important to the future of this country as economic issues are. Once the Tea Party embraced the far right wing social agenda, I think a lot of moderate Republicans had to make a choice.....cater to the Tea Party and abandon their moderate views....or become independents or even Democrats (horrors). I think the GOP lost a lot of good people, candidates, and voters by allowing the Tea Party tail to wag the Republican dog.
Oh - I didn't think you were trying to insult Bob. And it is certainly not my place to defend him. I was just trying to make a point that sometimes folks get blinded by what they think or see on TV - VS what others thing are real is all. The Tea party is not gay friendly for sure, but Bob is
Love you too. So many issues, so little beer.
archer, I do not mean to insult you either, but based on your post you are a tea partier also.
M, I do not get my inputs by what I see on TV. (BTW exactly what channel would that be). The tea party has an element of religious bigots who are not gay friendly. They are not at the helm. Every movement is a coalition. Apparently you think the tp is being steered by the social issue people. I think it is being steered by the fiscal conservative libertarian wing.
archer wrote: No insult intended to Bob.......only his assumption that the Tea Party would appeal to someone who sees social issues as important to the future of this country as economic issues are. Once the Tea Party embraced the far right wing social agenda, I think a lot of moderate Republicans had to make a choice.....cater to the Tea Party and abandon their moderate views....or become independents or even Democrats (horrors). I think the GOP lost a lot of good people, candidates, and voters by allowing the Tea Party tail to wag the Republican dog.
Oh - I didn't think you were trying to insult Bob. And it is certainly not my place to defend him. I was just trying to make a point that sometimes folks get blinded by what they think or see on TV - VS what others thing are real is all. The Tea party is not gay friendly for sure, but Bob is
Love you too. So many issues, so little beer.
archer, I do not mean to insult you either, but based on your post you are a tea partier also.
M, I do not get my inputs by what I see on TV. (BTW exactly what channel would that be). The tea party has an element of religious bigots who are not gay friendly. They are not at the helm. Every movement is a coalition. Apparently you think the tp is being steered by the social issue people. I think it is being steered by the fiscal conservative libertarian wing.
Ha - I bought you beer. It is at the house
See, there is our fundametal disagreement. I think its (tp) social issues are killing it. It is OK - we can agree to disagree. We do it all of the time.
archer wrote: [ but I will base my support for a candidate on what I think they will do with those beliefs. I just cannot support those who wish to impose their personal religious or "moral" beliefs on the nation as a whole, or on a state. It's a deal breaker for me. Same with many other social issues.....
Why do you think that is even on the rights agenda? Sure we have that element but I can think of 16 trillion reasons that they are not in charge.
On Wednesday, presidential candidate Michele Bachmann held a town hall meeting at the Pizza Ranch in Waverly, Iowa. The highlight of the evening came when a high school student in attendance raised her hand and asked Bachmann what she would do to support and protect the gay community.
Bachmann responded that all Americans should and do have the same rights, which drew a smattering of applause. The student responded: "Well, why can't same-sex couples get married?" Bachmann responded that gay men and lesbians do in fact have the same rights as everyone else because they can marry members of the opposite sex. So, a gay man could marry a woman. And a lesbian woman could marry a man. Even though they are gay. Got that?
I can go on and on with the candidates they support... So, you can't convince me when they support folks like this. I just said social issues were important to me - and OBVIOUSLY gay rights are.
Make sense?
And you and I can't really disagree. We have the same values - we just envision different ways to implement them. That is all
I found it to be a sensitve book about showing love for additional family members. I took the book to show the other council members and said I felt it was inoffensive and suggested for everyone to read it, but there were not takers. I said, ‘Sarah why don’t you take it home and read it.’ I could tell by her body language she cringed at the idea.I was shocked. It blew my mind that she wouldn’t look at it. [p. 77]
And you and I can't really disagree. We have the same values - we just envision different ways to implement them. That is all
Makes sense. So the question is would you rather live in, a world where sexual proclivities are totally uninhibited (why is this even a government issue) but your business has a lead ball of regulation around its neck that dictates what you are entitled too, or a government that wants to be in your bedroom but does not tax and regulate you to death.
edit. I see the gov that wants to be in the bedroom holding its breath and terning blue with frustration.
