Time to put up or shut up

[Jaskalas]

As a republican, I hate how the majority of repubs talk a good game about illegal immigration control, but do absolutely nothing about it, cowering to the smallest "advocate" voice for amnesty or op-ed piece against reform. Arizona is about the only state with balls right now.

GA and AL have new immigration laws under siege by Obama. AZ is not the only state with balls, but the Feds are shutting down all opposition to illegal immigration.

Yes, it'd be nice to have a party whose leaders actually gave a !@#$. Which really, when you think about it is nothing but than more of the same of my previous argument. These people claiming to represent us, in fact, do not.

If we really cared about immigration we'd drop kick Republicans to the curb, like every other issue we're supposed to support them for.

 

[dank69]

Wouldn't it be at least 20-life for first degree murder no matter what? Why would mandatory life or the death penalty really change anything?

Perhaps the guy who killed another guy during a fight that broke out because of an argument gets 20 years, and the guy who started a fight with a homosexual man because he is a homosexual man and ended up killing that man gets life. Thats the point of having a range of sentencing available.

 

[blankslate]

I don't like the default position that guns should all be banned that many Liberals hold.

I like shooting and at the same time I don't mind reasonable regulations in regards to firearms. Sadly it's idiots or careless people who ruin it for the rest.

 

[werepossum]

You've already created a thread on this exact premise IIRC, so I don't know why you needed to take it up again as a challenge.

A hate crime is not one where the victim is of a certain class. The "hate" element depends on the motive for committing the crime. You can kill a gay person in order to steal his car and that isn't a hate crime if your motive had nothing to do with him being gay.

Motives do matter under the law. Killing someone because they slept with your spouse is almost always treated differently than killing someone for the fun of it, for example. The law carries with it an implicit moral judgment regarding one's motives. A crime consists of more than just the physical act. Those concepts pre-existed the establishment of hate crimes.

Having motives considered during sentencing is a HUGE difference from having different laws for different groups. Case in point, the recent government ruling that a certain Native American tribe is allowed to kill two endangered bald eagles. Having different laws for different groups is a short step to having no law, just feudal justice handed down according to whim or political fashion.

Yes, the problem is that they're not "Republican" enough. They not conservative. They talk a good game just to buy votes, the same way they buy even more votes by spending tax dollars.

I'm quite sick of the GOP not living up to its own rhetoric. Then who do they want us to get behind in 2012? Mr. Massachusetts UHC. He's unapologetic, they are unapologetic, and we're supposed to bend over and take another eight years of Bush and big spending Republicans.

If I want to complain about the GOP I've ample opportunity every time they offer us a Presidential candidate be it Bush, McCain, or Romney. They keep on trucking down the same road year after year... after year...

Then as if to remind us that we need big spenders, the opposition rallies behind religion incarnate. Sigh...

Yeah, thanks guys. I really wanted to choose to rally behind either Jesus or Bush. Such a great choice, why don't I just go and vote for Obama while I'm at it?

My 'party' is doomed. All people have to do is wake up and smell the BS and it'll all be over, they'd have nothing left.

You do have a point. I think though that universal health care is something for which every state should strive, so I don't hold it against Romney. As long as people don't try to convince me that providing more health care for more people will not cost more, or try to nationalize it as per Obamacare, I'm behind programs to improve health care access.

I think long term the Republican Party is indeed doomed. Already roughly half of all households get some kind of government check and about the same pay no income taxes (which fund the government, as opposed to programs at least nominally for the individual such as Social Security.) We're at the point where a slim majority can elect the party promising them the most goodies.

 

[Jhhnn]

I criticize my own party, Democrats, for following along behind the Repubs' march to the Far Right at a distance. Today's Dems are basically the mainstream Repubs of 40 years ago. Today, Nixon would be considered a Dem, policy-wise, as would be Eisenhower.

Dems need to stand up and defend the New Deal principles that brought this country out of the Depression & provided the stable policy framework that allowed for the emergence of a broad and egalitarian middle class in the Post-WW2 era.

We don't need more billionaires- we need more people to have a little piece of the pie that isn't held on credit...

 

[hal2kilo]

I criticize my party for practically abandoning the policies of FDR's New Deal which was instrumental in expanding the middle class. This is what has made this one of the most successul and powerful economies in the history of the world.

 

[JSt0rm]

I can't stand gun control. If we were some endangered species then fine but we aren't. It's just used last a wedge issue to get the dimmest people to vote on one issue. Let the gun advocates get whatever they want and take this wedge issue away from them.

 

[woolfe9999]

Having motives considered during sentencing is a HUGE difference from having different laws for different groups. Case in point, the recent government ruling that a certain Native American tribe is allowed to kill two endangered bald eagles. Having different laws for different groups is a short step to having no law, just feudal justice handed down according to whim or political fashion.

Yes, but hate crimes laws generally apply an enhanced sentence where the motive is class based animus, and they generally do apply both ways.

 

[monovillage]

This is one i've spoken about before. I want Republicans to represent many people, not a small exclusive group that excludes people based on their sexual identity. It doesn't mean they must fund every program desired by LBGT organizations, but they must become more inclusive and accepting of different lifestyles.

 

[amish]

i'm starting to hate both parties equally; however, i tend to lean to the right.

1. separation of church and state - it is what our country was supposedly built on but noone seems to follow it. i don't want to hear how god says something is bad so we shouldn't do it. i want to hear that something is bad because it is actually fucking bad and, therefore, we shouldn't do it. i don't want to hear how someone wears a funny hat, someone believes in magic underwear, and someone else has "5 Ks". i want someone that is competent and does not allow their beliefs interfere in their job or become imposed on someone else.

2. spending - spending needs to be checked. we pander to the lowest common denominator. we let tax dollars go to pet projects brought to the floor by congress. we give money to people who refuse to help themselves. we send money overseas to countries that hate us thinking that a little money will bring them around.

3. military support - we have a military that is one of the finest in the world. yet we restrict their actions and put them in positions that are not ideal. we spend tons of money and time training generals to do battle and wage war; but then we don't listen to them. the assessment by Gen. Shinseki is a perfect example. he gave a full assessment based on his knowledge and was shot down by Rumsfeld. war is ugly. we need to let our soldiers do their job so that it is not a drawn out engagement.

4. nation building - the military cannot do this. they are trained to maneuver, adapt, overcome, and kill. let them do their job and then focus on security. send in someone else to rehabilitate. the peace corp, the IRS, anyone but the military.

5. illegal immigration - by definition they are illegal. stop catering to them and stop being afraid of them. kick them out, make them follow the rules like everyone else, and move on.

6. politicians placing themselves over society - politicians lately seem to only worry about getting reelected instead of taking the hard stances. it really upsets me when corporations are given a benefit which increases the value of the corporation. the member of congress that gave them a benefit owns a portion of the corporation and stands to gain personally from giving the corporation the benefit.

 

[manimal]

I criticize my party for practically abandoning the policies of FDR's New Deal which was instrumental in expanding the middle class. This is what has made this one of the most successul and powerful economies in the history of the world.

Well said

 

[cybrsage]

Because I'm in a good mood today, I'll entertain cybrsage's idiocy by calling his bluff.

It is nice to see I can shame you into doing the right thing.

 

[zsdersw]

It is nice to see I can shame you into doing the right thing.

Nah, I just felt like seeing what you'd post in response.

As I suspected, there will be no little criticism of "your side" from you.

EDIT: Criticism noted. Would like to see a thread created by you about those criticisms, though.

 

[cybrsage]

As a republican, I hate how the majority of repubs talk a good game about illegal immigration control, but do absolutely nothing about it, cowering to the smallest "advocate" voice for amnesty or op-ed piece against reform. Arizona is about the only state with balls right now.

This. Either secure the border as they keep promising to do, or stop promising to do it.

 

[cybrsage]

Nah, I just felt like seeing what you'd post in response.

Sure, if it makes you feel better, repeat it enough and I am sure you will actually believe it.

As I suspected, there will be no criticism of "your side" from you.

You notice you posted this directly below my critical post, right? Finally going to say you are wrong?

 

[zsdersw]

You notice you posted this directly below my critical post, right? Finally going to say you are wrong?

Actually, my post was made at the same time as yours. I didn't see yours until now.

 

[cybrsage]

Actually, my post was made at the same time as yours. I didn't see yours until now.

I noticed you still will not say you are wrong. Why can't you admit when you are wrong?

 

[zsdersw]

I noticed you still will not say you are wrong. Why can't you admit when you are wrong?

I did, actually... I edited the post.

 

[cybrsage]

You did not admit you were wrong. Care to publically and clearly admit you were wrong? Is your pride too strong for it?

 

[zsdersw]

You did not admit you were wrong. Care to publically and clearly admit you were wrong? Is your pride too strong for it?

I'll do so when you make a thread critical of Republicans. I'll also stop referring to you as a Republican shill once such a thread is made by you.

 

[DirthNader]

If anything, I lean right, so I'll aim my criticism at the Republicans.

Anything having to do with preventing equal rights for homosexuals is a lost cause. Even if you personally are for bans on gay marriage, adoption, whatever, the overall demographics are shifting where this will be a complete non-issue in voters' minds as the baby boomers start to die off.

20 years from now we'll all look back on things like DoMA the way we look back on "colored only" water fountains today.

 

[cybrsage]

That is what I thought, you refuse to ever admit you are wrong, even when it is directly shown to you that you are wrong. Yet, somehow, you expect people to take you seriously. That part amazes me. You are 100% proven wrong and yet refuse to actually admit you are wrong.

Time for you to grow up.

 

[zsdersw]

That is what I thought, you refuse to ever admit you are wrong, even when it is directly shown to you that you are wrong. Yet, somehow, you expect people to take you seriously. That part amazes me. You are 100% proven wrong and yet refuse to actually admit you are wrong.

Time for you to grow up.

I was expecting you to post a reply like this.

Since my post was made at the exact same time yours was, I acknowledged the error by editing my post. You then demanded something else, so I asked for something else in return. It's really that simple.

 

[cybrsage]

I asked if you would admit you were wrong. You refuse to admit you were wrong. It really is that simple, yes. Simply say "I was wrong" and be done with it. Unless your PRIDE forces you to not be able to admit it.

 

[zsdersw]

I asked if you would admit you were wrong. You refuse to admit you were wrong. It really is that simple, yes. Simply say "I was wrong" and be done with it. Unless your PRIDE forces you to not be able to admit it.

You asked for something above and beyond acknowledging the error, I asked for something above and beyond in return.

Simply make a thread critical of Republicans (about illegal immigration, if you'd like) and be done with it. Unless your ALLEGIANCE to the GOP forces you to not do so.