My favorite thing about the conservative argument against gay marriage is that they claim that soon people are going to be marrying animals.
Because the GOP has only been a haven for religious whack-jobs since Bush in 00. Before that it was merely about moderate conservatism. Once the evan fundy nutz were rounded up by Rove the party went to crap...hence the support for Huckabee.
The GOP should splinter soon...neo-cons, libertarians, old skool republicans, and fundie evans. This is in no way a bad thing. I hope the same thing happens to democrats as well. We can finally have semi-accurate representation in government.
That's quite the fallacy you have going there, abortion has been a platform ever since Roe vs Wade in the 1970's. It was definitely a concern before the ruling took place.
Why does everyone that believes in God and actually practice what they believe become a "whack-job" to people like you?
You give us the break - are you blind? He just treated two men marrying the same as a man and an animal (or a man and a child) marrying in the quote above, bolded.
You have the gall to use the word fallacy in a post, after you use the slippery slope fallacy so blatantly here, as if the 'gay agenda' is to legalize bestiality and child rape?
That's exactly what you are saying in the 'give them an inch, they'll take a mile' comment.
You don't disprove his irrational, hate-filled homophobia, you show you share it.
Supporting the discrimination against equal rights for gays is plenty for opposing a candidate. You appear to think that a majority of a party agreeing make that not the case.
Sorry, but that's simply you refusing to deal with the merits of the issue. If the majority of the GOP opposed legal inter-racial marriage in the 1960's, does that make it 'legitimate'?
And as we showed, he doesn't 'just' oppose the discrimination, he equates two gay men to a gay man and an animal, showing his level of disrespect and lack of understanding.
Beyond gay marriage, he's a *panderer* to the religious fanatics, he happily encourages their desire for tearing down the wall between church and state.
You need to learn to 'read between the lines' sometimes. In your OP, where does he say anything about his opposition to the teaching of creationism in the classroom as a 'valid point of view' in science classes? He doesn't because he's too busy pushing the radical religious right's agenda *for creationism to be taught in science classes as a legitimate alternative theory*. That's what they want, they know they can't 'teach it as a doctrine', i.e., INSTEAD of science in the science classes, but they want it added.
He spins the issue by saying that teaching only the science in science classes is 'censorship' of the creationist view - censorship he opposes. That's the radical, anti-science position.
Your post just reinforces why he's so dangerous, when this is him *on his good behavior trying to get elected by the general public*.
My problem with Huckabee isn't Huckabee himself, it's who supports him. Despite being what I would consider a little TOO religious, everyone is entitled to their personal religious views, and overall he seems more reasonable than most of the Republican party. But for some reason he's attracted the most off the wall nutbars in the entire party, the psycho religious folks who want to replace the bill of rights with the 10 commandments. I don't know what it is about him that gives these people the "support me" vibes, but I don't want to have anything to do with it. There are few sure things in politics, but I think it's a safe policy to support the opposite of what religious conservatives want.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,753
- 10,056
- 136
Did you look at the alternatives?
Teddy's girl or Teddy's governor. Of course hard core conservatives flock to the only average conservative on the ticket. My first instinct of Romney was big business, neocon, and ?compassionate conservative? like Bush. He would have been the only other choice.
People like Bush, McCain, and Romney appeal to moderate Republicans. They love big government and Patriot Acts galore.
Nice fallacy you have going there.
I never said abortion wasn't a plank commonly held, I said the total nutbuggers only showed up recently during the recent 'awakening' of fundamentalist evangelicals (otherwise known as 35iq lint-herders). There's a big difference between a Christian (or any religious adherent) and a fundamentalist evangelical. Huckabee is a member of, and is attracting, the latter. Huckabee is arguing for changes so extreme and objectionable that he would have been committed to an institution if he'd publicly called for it twenty years ago.
I have no issue with religion, or people who believe in it. I DO have a problem with that belief overrides absolutely everything in their lives and they become utterly insane with it (ie fundamentalist evangelicals).
This is nothing new. America goes through periods of 'awakening' followed by periods of 'enlightenment'. We're in a religious upswing right now is all. Fortunately religion has decreased in power just enough that this time we have a chance to fight it...at least to keep them from gaining too much power and influence.
Hey, I'm not saying the alternatives are anything to write home about either...but I am deeply suspicious of the religious right in this country. I don't like their politics, and I don't like the devotion they seem to have to the idea of legislating their religious views. The last thing we need is a theocracy, but that's exactly what they seem to want. I don't like the PATRIOT ACT either, but it's better than being discriminated against because I'm not a Christian. You think I'm joking, but some of these people are downright scary.
Correct. The abortion and anti-gay planks to the platform came to the GOP platform at the 1976 Convention.
Thats actually incorrect. The GOP has been courting the Evangelicals since Regean. They've been there voting since then. Its just made more of an issue now.
So Romney will get extinct too?
Huckabee is on pace to get more delegates on Super Tuesday, if the polls hold up.
Ok, I've just never seen that in studies and reports...that it was a major issue, or that they were soooo aggressive and openly ignorant. The major talk in political science circles is that it was Rove mobilizing them in 2000 that empowered them, fueling the 'awakening' and partitioning the GOP.
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
Rove did best at getting them out to vote and mobilizing them as a bloc, but Reagan was the first to pander to them. People tend to idolize Reagan nowadays and have forgotten all that was wrong with his presidency.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Not scared of him at all. In fact, I'd welcome his nomination for the Republican party.
He's as exciting as watching paint dry, and he has made little effort to make himself stand out so far in his campaign. A Democratic victory in November would be swift with him on the ballot.
He's as exciting as watching paint dry, and he has made little effort to make himself stand out so far in his campaign. A Democratic victory in November would be swift with him on the ballot.
I absolutely could not consider anyone who does not accept evolution as as qualified for president.
Marriage was once a legal term (although women were generally considered property). Now it is a religious term (God approves marriages). As such, I think the government should stop using the term altogether and consider marriages to be civil unions too.
The Constitution is not, and never should be based on religious beliefs. Revamping it to reflect Christian beliefs is as un-American as you can get.
It would be foolish not to look at who supports a candidate. Not necessarily individuals, but organized groups with agendas only rally around candidates who think the candidate will support their agenda.
I wouldn't vote for Huckabee for dog catcher.
Marriage was once a legal term (although women were generally considered property). Now it is a religious term (God approves marriages). As such, I think the government should stop using the term altogether and consider marriages to be civil unions too.
The Constitution is not, and never should be based on religious beliefs. Revamping it to reflect Christian beliefs is as un-American as you can get.
It would be foolish not to look at who supports a candidate. Not necessarily individuals, but organized groups with agendas only rally around candidates who think the candidate will support their agenda.
I wouldn't vote for Huckabee for dog catcher.
I've always largely detested him, though he did have good points as well. I just don't remember it being such an issue then. Of course, being born in 72 I wasn't hyper-aware of politics during Reagan, and there's very little talk about religion in the studies I've read of him. Mostly his obvious fiscal lunacy, and failing mental health.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 389
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter