Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Liberals or Conservatives: Who?s Really Close-Minded?
Except that even without gay marriage, gay couples are allowed to adopt children and thus they can still have a "family." This worldview also suggests that without having kids, there is no purpose to getting married. Well, except to have sex without guilt. But if the only purpose of marriage is family, why isn't there an outcry to stop old and/or infertile and/or people who don't want kids from getting married?
I just came here to say I was BETTER than everyone!!
::drops mike, walks out:::
Speaking of this, did you see the end of Obama slow jamming the news on Jimmy Fallon's show? He dropped the mic like SUCH A DORK!!! It was great.
Dude, I'll bite. There are definitely some things that I have no idea about and can't see the other side.
In all honesty, until I came on this board, I would have easily said, "All conservatives think this and believe that...." This board has helped me tremendously.
But the thing is, when I listen to vocal cons speak, they never really go into a lot of explanation why they do certain things. For instance, before this board I honestly thought cons did not care at all about the poor. It was because they would say, "We're cutting this program, etc." but they would never say, "but we realize people are using this so we want to do *insert an idea* in the meantime to assist people in the interim" or "we think this program would be better if we did ABC..." etc. What was I to think? It was like either there was no problem so just cut the program that was being used by thousands of people to get by day to day, feed their kids,etc..., or just cut it because well.....because we want to use the money elsewhere. Public cons don't do a great job of showing empathy on things like that.
Well, I think that just shows that this strategist has more brains than Rick Santorum. No surprise there. I'm sure he can figure out that the GOP is better off being a bit more moderate than Santorum, so of course that's going to be his positition.
I don't think it is fair to say that the liberals are the ones putting it out there, though.
Also, what about the Personhood bullshiit?!
Does this lady think we're really that stupid? Come on!
I think we've agreed, to some extent, that we liberals don't always understand the motivations of conservatives. I think it's crap to call that being closed-minded. That's just not understanding the other side's position. And if that comes from them being so scared to speak (which is hilarious, but fine), why should that equate to liberals being closed-minded? Couldn't you just as easily say that the poor, persecuted Republicans are spineless?
To clarify, I don't think that, that's just another possible interpretation of what's happening.
IIRC (and please correct me if i'm wrong) they were legally allowed to marry well before they were declared 1 whole person, right? i'll try to see what i come up with on the webz but i thought i remembered learning this in class.
ETA: i can't find the law but basically it sounds like all blacks had the right to marry once slavery was ended. yowch.
This is how I feel.
I can understand the grey with topics like abortion, immigration reform, and even healthcare reform. I do try to research the other side to understand where Reps are coming from on their particular positions and sometimes I even agree a little.
However, there are just some things that are black and white. When it comes to civil rights(gays, women, minorities), there is only one right answer and I don't care to know why Republicans feel differently than I do. I just think they are wrong.
Family law is not usually national. But again, if you were really concerned about keeping the traditional family and people not starting one solely to benefit themselves, wouldn't you also push for some sort of child pledge/requirement for marriage? Otherwise, it's an inconsistent position for which you are singling out gay people and so there must be another motivation.
Uhm, actually, now that I'm thinking about it. It's not that blacks weren't allowed to marry, it was that slaves were not permitted to marry. In the south, this pretty much meant black folks couldn't get married.
Click me, click me!
I'm talking about the huge assumptions being made about what conservatives believe. As long as conservatives are being written off as woman-hating, gay-hating, polar bear-hating, poor-hating, and other wide-sweeping generalizations, I will consider those that are doing so to be closed-minded.
When I do keep silent, it's not out of fear. It's because it's not worth it to me to be written off before I've even started talking.
But please, let's keep on talking about the Rick Santorum platform. The one that was so successful that it lead to him having no real chance to be the nominee for the Republican party.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
I am the 99%.
I'll CP what I already said about this:
But the thing is, when I listen to vocal cons speak, they never really go into a lot of explanation why they do certain things. For instance, before this board I honestly thought cons did not care at all about the poor. It was because they would say, "We're cutting this program, etc." but they would never say, "but we realize people are using this so we want to do *insert an idea* in the meantime to assist people in the interim" or "we think this program would be better if we did ABC..." etc. What was I to think? It was like either there was no problem so just cut the program that was being used by thousands of people to get by day to day, feed their kids,etc..., or just cut it because well.....because we want to use the money elsewhere. Public cons don't do a great job of showing empathy on things like that.
That's why I didn't qualify my answer with a particular political party.
And, I'mma be honest, the Republicans that don't want that need to start speaking up and making a ruckus because as long as you have people like Rush and The Ricks and Newt and that nutjob who likened women giving birth to chickens and cows as the face of your party then people are going to assume that's what you stand for. If the majority of the party doesn't care about gays getting married, or abortion or whatever, then they need to take their goddamn party back because right now? That's all I hear them talking about.
Would you care to point to the one of us that opposes gay marriage?
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
The fact that he won a few states I think is telling. Perhaps most republicans don't share his views, but I believe one significant reason he didn't win more states wasn't necessarily because they didn't share those views, but rather because of his electability.
Okay, let's talk about Romney, then. The legitimate Republican nominee.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values
I don't think a single Con on this board opposes gay rights, and I believe most (if not all) of us, support gay marriage.
I think when gay marriage comes up as an issue on our side, it's as a way to score electoral points with the base, rather than something people actually support or think is the most pressing issue. The vast majority of GOPers I have encountered working in DC have gay friends, support gay rights, etc.
In this way I don't think it's all that different than Dem politicians couching their position by saying they support civil unions--do you really think they believe they only want civil unions, or do you think they are saying it because it's safer politically than going full gay marriage?
Find me here instead!
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home DI promise that one plank of the Republican platform at the convention this year will be that the party considers itself pro-life. Because that happens at every convention.
I kind of pine for the 1950s and early 60s, when your position on social issues didn't dictate your party. At all. There were Republicans who were pro-integration and anti-Jim Crow, and then... well, there were the Southern Democrats. Now it seems like if you're a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage Republican, you have to stipulate that its despite your party's common beliefs.
40/112
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
Pamela, Sisugal, 2V?
I am the 99%.