I hope not Doug. If liberals accuse them of selling out, I'd be upset because i hope the liberals would show more class and maturity than that. If they do change their stance on social issues, I hope it's viewed by everyone as evolution of society. That's why I like Christie. When I watched his recent debate, he was asked about gay marriage, and he talked about his full respect for the gay community, and while he believes it should be between a man and a woman, he vowed to let the people of NJ decide. He never brought religion into his answer, which shows his ability to separate church and state. I can't ask for anything more than that out of a politician.
Romney lost because of his stance on social issues? Well, that's one theory I guess. On the other hand it could have been the fact that he ran a poor campaign and didn't have much appeal to his base, much less most anybody else. He was a bore.
The campaign Obama ran may have been a factor also. Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job!
He was also a big meanie who held a guy down and cut his hair in the 7th grade and once put a dog on top of his car. He took health care away from people and caused them to die. He was out to take birth control away from people and outlaw abortion and he hated gays.....On and on and on 24/7....
Worked pretty good. The average voter probably couldn't have told you what Romney's stance was on _____________. But they could tell you he was a rich meanie who was out of touch and didn't care if people died, and he hated women and minorities.
If there's one thing the GOP needs to change, it might not be the platform. Maybe they need to take a page from the Obama playbook and realize what kind of campaign you need to run. If you want to win it's pretty obvious you can't play Nerf ball. Turn the tables.
[Edited on 10/11/2014 by alloak41]
The GOP cannot continue to be on the wrong side of social issues and expect to be a viable party going forward.
The "wrong side"?...Too funny. How about the opposing side? I love it, if you are not a liberal, "tolerant" Democrat, then you are wrong. I happened to be in my local watering hole the other evening when a "conversation" about Gay marriage started just two seats down from me. You should have heard the "tolerance" displayed when one had the audacity to say he thought "Gay marriage was wrong". Called every name in the book including, Homophobe, bigot, hater, I didn't blame him one bit when he asked for his tab, paid and walked away. Being a Libertarian, it's not a big issue to me, because I just don't care one way or the other, but please, don't make me laugh with this "wrong side of an issue" crap.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views"
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I will just be happy and hoping to see new faces competing on the Republican side. John McCain and Mit Romney were never near my radar. And I hope both parties field diverse candidates in for the primary. Whether it has been Gravel, Kucinich or Paul from either side, these people bring views to the table that should be discussed but get glossed over by major candidates.
John McCain and Mit Romney were never near my radar.
You can add Bob Dole and Sarah Palin to that list
I love it, if you are not a liberal, "tolerant" Democrat, then you are wrong.
Isn't that the point of taking a side?
What gets me is the broad brush strokes that divide this country. I'm far too nuanced to be pigeon holed into a this or that category.
I love it, if you are not a liberal, "tolerant" Democrat, then you are wrong.
Isn't that the point of taking a side?
Whatever happened to just agreeing to disagree?
How about the opposing side? I love it, if you are not a liberal, "tolerant" Democrat, then you are wrong. I happened to be in my local watering hole the other evening when a "conversation" about Gay marriage started just two seats down from me. You should have heard the "tolerance" displayed when one had the audacity to say he thought "Gay marriage was wrong". Called every name in the book including, Homophobe, bigot, hater, I didn't blame him one bit when he asked for his tab, paid and walked away. Being a Libertarian, it's not a big issue to me, because I just don't care one way or the other, but please, don't make me laugh with this "wrong side of an issue" crap.
By stating that gay marriage is "wrong", the gentleman in the story wasn't really offering the possibility of an opposing side. He is the one who initiated a conversation of intolerance, and the "wrong side of an issue", by stating that it is "wrong". If you claim that a certain lifestyle is wrong, you are the one starting the problem. If you get hit in the face, you're going to hit back.
How about the opposing side? I love it, if you are not a liberal, "tolerant" Democrat, then you are wrong. I happened to be in my local watering hole the other evening when a "conversation" about Gay marriage started just two seats down from me. You should have heard the "tolerance" displayed when one had the audacity to say he thought "Gay marriage was wrong". Called every name in the book including, Homophobe, bigot, hater, I didn't blame him one bit when he asked for his tab, paid and walked away. Being a Libertarian, it's not a big issue to me, because I just don't care one way or the other, but please, don't make me laugh with this "wrong side of an issue" crap.
By stating that gay marriage is "wrong", the gentleman in the story wasn't really offering the possibility of an opposing side. He is the one who initiated a conversation of intolerance, and the "wrong side of an issue", by stating that it is "wrong". If you claim that a certain lifestyle is wrong, you are the one starting the problem. If you get hit in the face, you're going to hit back.
So, stating an opposing view is akin to "hitting someone in the face"?....where is the "tolerance"?
Too funny.
He didn't state an opposing view. He said it was wrong. Do you understand the difference?
Romney lost because of his stance on social issues? Well, that's one theory I guess. On the other hand it could have been the fact that he ran a poor campaign and didn't have much appeal to his base, much less most anybody else. He was a bore.
The campaign Obama ran may have been a factor also. Month after month, the public was deluged non-stop with negative Romney personality traits. The ultra-rich felon that didn't pay taxes, loved to fire people, was so rich he was out of touch and would outsource your job!
He was also a big meanie who held a guy down and cut his hair in the 7th grade and once put a dog on top of his car. He took health care away from people and caused them to die. He was out to take birth control away from people and outlaw abortion and he hated gays.....On and on and on 24/7....
Worked pretty good. The average voter probably couldn't have told you what Romney's stance was on _____________. But they could tell you he was a rich meanie who was out of touch and didn't care if people died, and he hated women and minorities.
If there's one thing the GOP needs to change, it might not be the platform. Maybe they need to take a page from the Obama playbook and realize what kind of campaign you need to run. If you want to win it's pretty obvious you can't play Nerf ball. Turn the tables.
[Edited on 10/11/2014 by alloak41]
IMHO Romney lost for two big reasons
1. He was a phony who changed his opinion depending on who he was talking too. He was a major flip flopper. You never really where he stood on any campaign issue. Here are some of his classics
2. The GOP was fractured on supporting him. He was their best chance of winning as he was the most moderate out of bankrupt field of candidates but he never seemed to really have his own parties endorsement.
As far as the Obama administration attacking him he was an easy target and the GOP was not innocent in attacking Obama. If you want to see the champions of dirty campaigning all you have to do is go back and look at Bush's two campaigns. Smear politics at its finest.
Hillary will win because she is smart, articulate, and appeals to her political base. She will have the woman, minority, and Gen X vote and will have a take no prisoners campaign team which is already being assembled. She also has Bubba Clinton as her campaign consigliore and he has the connections to bring in the money and support. She will have a massive campaign fund when it comes time for war.
With no viable candidate on the horizon the train wreck GOP will be far behind once they sort through the collection of wanabees and their candidate is chosen. JMO but I can't see the Teaparty and more conservative factions of the GOP supporting Christie but it should be an fascintating GOP primary process to watch.
He didn't state an opposing view. He said it was wrong. Do you understand the difference?
When all else fails, resort to condescension. It is what you do.
quote:
He didn't state an opposing view. He said it was wrong. Do you understand the difference?When all else fails, resort to condescension. It is what you do.
It was a serious question. At any rate, my point is that you are the one who opposes when someone else establishes a "wrong side of an issue". But that's exactly what the guy in your story did. He established that gay marriage is "wrong". By your own beliefs, he is the one starting the crap, as you put it. Was it right to respond with name-calling? Probably not, but the man in the story was the one who showed intolerance by establishing that gay marriage is on "the wrong side of the issue". It seems you don't have a problem with him....just the liberals who name-called.
[Edited on 10/11/2014 by BoytonBrother]
quote:
He didn't state an opposing view. He said it was wrong. Do you understand the difference?When all else fails, resort to condescension. It is what you do.
It was a serious question. At any rate, my point is that you are the one opposes when someone else claims the other is "on the wrong side of an issue". But that's exactly what the guy in your story did. He established that gay marriage is "wrong". By your own beliefs, he is the one starting the crap, as you put it. Was it right to respond with name-calling? Probably not, but the man in the story was the one who showed intolerance by establishing that gay marriage is on "the wrong side of the issue". It seems you don't have a problem with him....just the liberals who name-called.
It was also the gentleman in my "story" who just...walked away. I was under the impression that the left was the party of "tolerance" yet, according to you, if someone else starts it, then "tolerance" is out the window and all is fair. Seems tolerance only works if Libs agree with the initial viewpoint, no matter how it is delivered.
It was also the gentleman in my "story" who just...walked away. I was under the impression that the left was the party of "tolerance" yet, according to you, if someone else starts it, then "tolerance" is out the window and all is fair. Seems tolerance only works if Libs agree with the initial viewpoint, no matter how it is delivered.
Let me get this straight. You oppose people who establish opposing views as being on the wrong side of an issue. The man who claims that gay marriage and its supporters are on the wrong side of the issue, is simply offering his viewpoint. But if a liberal says that opposition to gay marriage is the wrong side of the issue, they are intolerant and hypocritical. The man in your story was the better person because he walked away after establishing gay marriage supporters as being on the wrong side of the issue.
[Edited on 10/11/2014 by BoytonBrother]
It was also the gentleman in my "story" who just...walked away. I was under the impression that the left was the party of "tolerance" yet, according to you, if someone else starts it, then "tolerance" is out the window and all is fair. Seems tolerance only works if Libs agree with the initial viewpoint, no matter how it is delivered.
Let me get this straight. You oppose people who establish opposing views as being on the wrong side of an issue. The man who claims that gay marriage and its supporters are on the wrong side of the issue, is simply offering his viewpoint. But if a liberal says that opposition to gay marriage is the wrong side of the issue, they are intolerant and hypocritical. The man in your story was the better person because he walked away after establishing gay marriage supporters as being on the wrong side of the issue.
[Edited on 10/11/2014 by BoytonBrother]
Good response but too logical for this thread.
However, I believe that health problems will be the culprit. I think her health problems are worse than they're letting on. Could be right or could be wrong, just a gut feeling on my part.
Forgive me, but I can't recall any presidential candidate since WWII who chose not to run for health reasons. I don't claim any expertise here, but when has that happened? Muskie was dropped from the ticket as VP because his willingness to seek medical treatment for clinical depression was considered a liability.
Yeah, I agree. I should expect this by now.
However, I believe that health problems will be the culprit. I think her health problems are worse than they're letting on. Could be right or could be wrong, just a gut feeling on my part.
Forgive me, but I can't recall any presidential candidate since WWII who chose not to run for health reasons.
You're forgiven, but were any of them Hillary Clinton?
However, I believe that health problems will be the culprit. I think her health problems are worse than they're letting on. Could be right or could be wrong, just a gut feeling on my part.
Forgive me, but I can't recall any presidential candidate since WWII who chose not to run for health reasons.
You're forgiven, but were any of them Hillary Clinton?
Hillary has one fainting spell that was treated and you have her on her death bed. Are you sure you don't work for Fox News? 😛
quote:
He didn't state an opposing view. He said it was wrong. Do you understand the difference?When all else fails, resort to condescension. It is what you do.
It was a serious question. At any rate, my point is that you are the one opposes when someone else claims the other is "on the wrong side of an issue". But that's exactly what the guy in your story did. He established that gay marriage is "wrong". By your own beliefs, he is the one starting the crap, as you put it. Was it right to respond with name-calling? Probably not, but the man in the story was the one who showed intolerance by establishing that gay marriage is on "the wrong side of the issue". It seems you don't have a problem with him....just the liberals who name-called.
It was also the gentleman in my "story" who just...walked away. I was under the impression that the left was the party of "tolerance" yet, according to you, if someone else starts it, then "tolerance" is out the window and all is fair. Seems tolerance only works if Libs agree with the initial viewpoint, no matter how it is delivered.
Word.
Some pretty revealing posts on this thread and they explain quite a bit.
But if a liberal says that opposition to gay marriage is the wrong side of the issue, they are intolerant and hypocritical.
Correct
noun: tolerance
"The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with".
But if a liberal says that opposition to gay marriage is the wrong side of the issue, they are intolerant and hypocritical.
Correct
noun: tolerance
"The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with".
Opposition to an idea is not intolerance. It is a difference of opinion.
I get it now. Even though the man in your story was intolerant towards gay rights, a liberal should just keep quite and respect his opinion since they preach tolerance.
It was also the gentleman in my "story" who just...walked away. I was under the impression that the left was the party of "tolerance" yet, according to you, if someone else starts it, then "tolerance" is out the window and all is fair. Seems tolerance only works if Libs agree with the initial viewpoint, no matter how it is delivered.
Word.
Some pretty revealing posts on this thread and they explain quite a bit.
By all means, enlighten us. What has it revealed and explained?
I get it now. Even though the man in your story was intolerant towards gay rights, a liberal should just keep quite and respect his opinion since they preach tolerance.
There ya go. Yes, if you are indeed a believer in being tolerant, that is exactly what you do.
"I respect your opinion, but disagree"
You might shake your head in wonder as you are doing so, but you don't for one moment believe you are going to change this person's viewpoint?...Do you?
So just walk away, the Sun will rise in the morning just as it always does.
But if a liberal says that opposition to gay marriage is the wrong side of the issue, they are intolerant and hypocritical.
Correct
noun: tolerance
"The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with".
Opposition to an idea is not intolerance. It is a difference of opinion.
"Called every name in the book including, Homophobe, bigot, hater,"
Sounds awfully "intolerant" to me.
But if a liberal says that opposition to gay marriage is the wrong side of the issue, they are intolerant and hypocritical.
Correct
noun: tolerance
"The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with".
Opposition to an idea is not intolerance. It is a difference of opinion.
"Called every name in the book including, Homophobe, bigot, hater,"
Sounds awfully "intolerant" to me.
And you know these guys were liberals because... why? You labeled them based on this? Sounds like you jumped to a conclusion. Now very tolerant.
Yes, and liberals should also keep quiet and respect the opinions of the KKK too I guess. If a liberal criticizes the KKK, they are hypocrites.
[Edited on 10/12/2014 by BoytonBrother]
Yes, and liberals should also keep quiet and respect the opinions of the KKK too I guess. If a liberal criticizes the KKK, they are hypocrites.
Yup, nothing says intolerant like criticizing the Nazis for the Holocaust. One mustn't criticize others views that are different than yours, otherwise you are nothing but a hypicrite. Got it!
