What are your political deal breakers?

[UncleBuck]

A broken record.....skip.....skip....skip.....skip.....skip

nice rebuttal, princess. you tried.

 

[BigNBushy]

no. it's not. it's just another eexample of rawn pawl the racist bigot trying to legislate his evangelical morality.

I'm fine with people being gay. If it is presented as an equal lifestyle then people much younger will start having gay sex.

Rebellious gay youths will flock into the waiting arms of much older gay men looking to take advantage.

Then hiv gets into the high school world.

Then the confused youth discoveres he isn't really gay.

My gay friend fucked all of his straight friends from 12 to 15. It's a very confusing time. There needs to be some level of taboo on being gay.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm fine with people being gay. If it is presented as an equal lifestyle then people much younger will start having gay sex.

Rebellious gay youths will flock into the waiting arms of much older gay men looking to take advantage.

Then hiv gets into the high school world.

Then the confused youth discoveres he isn't really gay.

My gay friend fucked all of his straight friends from 12 to 15. It's a very confusing time. There needs to be some level of taboo on being gay.

so that's your morality and you want to legislate it, just like libertarian republican evangelicals like to do.

what was the point of this thread again?

 

[BigNBushy]

so that's your morality and you want to legislate it, just like libertarian republican evangelicals like to do.

what was the point of this thread again?

I don't want to legate it.

It's a cultural thing, beyond the grasp of law in a free speech society.

I wouldn't pass one law having to do with homosexuality.

I wouldn't pass a law saying we're going to fund a homosexual agenda, or defund any group that also promotes homosexuality.

I just gave my view, as is my right.

I don't care what the president's opinion is on things like abortion, gay rights, et cetera because there is little, if anything a president can actually do to change policy towards those issues.

 

[MidwesternGro]

I don't care what the president's opinion is on things like abortion, gay rights, et cetera because there is little, if anything a president can actually do to change policy towards those issues.

Let's say Rand Paul was elected president and a bill protecting gay people from being discriminated against in the workplace was placed on his desk to veto or pass. He would obviously veto that bill because he is a piece of shit and admitted to having bigoted piece of shit opinions on the subject. Most Americans aren't pieces of shit when it comes to gay rights anymore, which is why the festering turd known as Rand Paul will get flushed down the toilet during a national election.

 

[BigNBushy]

Let's say Rand Paul was elected president and a bill protecting gay people from being discriminated against in the workplace was placed on his desk to veto or pass. He would obviously veto that bill because he is a piece of shit and admitted to having bigoted piece of shit opinions on the subject. Most Americans aren't pieces of shit when it comes to gay rights anymore, which is why the festering turd known as Rand Paul will get flushed down the toilet during a national election.

Now now, when Obama was elected he was vocally opposed to gay equality.

It is his candidacy that likely caused gay marriage to fail in California.

He didn't change his mind until a couple years ago.

So it is only a matter of time until all politicians are in favor of gay equality.

Don't gloat because most of your politicians changed their mind just so recently.

 

[MidwesternGro]

Now now, when Obama was elected he was vocally opposed to gay equality.

It is his candidacy that likely caused gay marriage to fail in California.

He didn't change his mind until a couple years ago.

So it is only a matter of time until all politicians are in favor of gay equality.

Don't gloat because most of your politicians changed their mind just so recently.

We had two people who were pieces of shit towards the gays back then. Now it would be only one if Rand Paul somehow was the rethug standard bearer. Kudos to Obama for becoming a non piece of shit though, I doubt it will ever happen for Rand Paul.

 

[ginwilly]

We had two people who were pieces of shit towards the gays back then. Now it would be only one if Rand Paul somehow was the rethug standard bearer. Kudos to Obama for becoming a non piece of shit though, I doubt it will ever happen for Rand Paul.

I thought Rand Paul's position was that although he's morally against gay marriage, it's a state issue and should be decided on that level. He even agreed when the courts struck down the DOMA.

Isn't that pretty much lockstep with Obama who got applause for saying the same thing?

Funny thing, one of the guys really is a state's rights guy and the other is a huge central planner. Why do you support Obama and throw off on Paul? At least Paul is consistent with that view.

 

[ginwilly]

The deal breaker for me is collectivism. Whether Dem or Pub, if you think you know what's best for people in both LA and Jasper TN, and want to legislate accordingly with one sized fits all solutions, I don't want you.

 

[MidwesternGro]

I thought Rand Paul's position was that although he's morally against gay marriage, it's a state issue and should be decided on that level. He even agreed when the courts struck down the DOMA.

Isn't that pretty much lockstep with Obama who got applause for saying the same thing?

Funny thing, one of the guys really is a state's rights guy and the other is a huge central planner. Why do you support Obama and throw off on Paul? At least Paul is consistent with that view.

Rand Paul is an immoral piece of shit towards the gays because he thinks that their orientation, which is an intrinsic part of them, is immoral. Obama now wants gays to be married, he does not think it is a states' rights (code for right to be a bigot) issue. Civil rights should not be a state issue, they should be upheld on a federal level. Rand Paul is a backwards religious zealot.

 

[ginwilly]

Rand Paul is an immoral piece of shit towards the gays because he thinks that their orientation, which is an intrinsic part of them, is immoral. Obama now wants gays to be married, he does not think it is a states' rights (code for right to be a bigot) issue. Civil rights should not be a state issue, they should be upheld on a federal level. Rand Paul is a backwards religious zealot.

I don't agree with the bible thumping from Paul either, but immoral piece of shit seems strong. He has the same stance as Obama, it's a state thing.

Not everyone has to agree, "from a religious standpoint," that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, President Obama told Telemundo in an interview taped Wednesday. But as the Supreme Court considers two cases on the hot-button issue, he added, recognizing same-sex couples is "not only is it right and fair, but also consistent with our Constitution."

The president came out in support of gay marriage last May, qualifying that law relating to the issue should be determined at the state level.

So Obama gets credit from you, Paul gets vile from you, yet they both have the same stance. Seems odd.

Which guy would you say "state's rights" is consistent with his platform?

 

[kelly4]

no, those are actually rend pawl's policy stances.

rend pawl wants a "virtuous" society. he does not want to see gay people with the freedom to marry (like any garden variety bible thumper), but he knows it is a political loser. his stated position is to give it time and let certain states hold out and maybe eventually win the "hearts and minds" of people into once again favoring unequal rights for gay people.

on cannabis, he does not want to see it re-legalized, he just wants to sentence growers to less years in prison than we do now. and he wants more users to have to go to rehab for their cannabis problem instead of prison for smaller offenses like possession or use.

these are his stated views to evangelicals when he talks to them. i'm pretty sure he probably said the same thing when he was pandering to historically black colleges.

but feel free to keep denying reality.

Yep, I'd also rather vote for Ron Paul...

 

[kelly4]

In my view, these national Republicans that talk libertarian are merely trying to co-opt that movement within the Republican camp.

Libertarianism is becoming common among the Republican party. The nationally prominent politicians are not truly there yet.

What's in bold is pure bullshit! The pure opposite is happening.

Us true Libertarians can easily see through the thin veil these republicans are wearing to try and win us over.

Why do you capitalize republican, but not Libertarian?

 

[kelly4]

I'm fine with people being gay.
You kind of have to be, being as you've admitted to sucking so much cock, eh?
There needs to be some level of taboo on being gay.

I don't understand you at all and I think you are a complete loser, sir.

 

[kelly4]

Rand Paul is an immoral piece of shit towards the gays because he thinks that their orientation, which is an intrinsic part of them, is immoral. Obama now wants gays to be married, he does not think it is a states' rights (code for right to be a bigot) issue. Civil rights should not be a state issue, they should be upheld on a federal level. Rand Paul is a backwards religious zealot.

My state used it's "states rights" to get marijuana legalized.

 

[MidwesternGro]

I don't agree with the bible thumping from Paul either, but immoral piece of shit seems strong. He has the same stance as Obama, it's a state thing.



So Obama gets credit from you, Paul gets vile from you, yet they both have the same stance. Seems odd.

Which guy would you say "state's rights" is consistent with his platform?

Obama's stance is not that it is a states thing. He thinks gays should be allowed to marry.

 

[MidwesternGro]

My state used it's "states rights" to get marijuana legalized.

And wouldn't it be better to have it legalized at a federal level? Who is against it being legalized for the most part, liberals or conservatives? I think Obama will reschedule cannabis right before he leaves office, he just doesn't want it to be an issue Hillary has to deal with while she is running for President. You know that rescheduling cannabis will rile up the bible thumping repubs.

 

[BigNBushy]

What's in bold is pure bullshit! The pure opposite is happening.

Us true Libertarians can easily see through the thin veil these republicans are wearing to try and win us over.

Why do you capitalize republican, but not Libertarian?

When I talk about Republicans, it's a proper noun, Libertarian party is not being discussed. Just the philosophy of libertarianism does not need caps.

However. You said what I said.

It's growing in favor in the Republican population. The politicians are pandering and trying to co-opt it.

 

[kelly4]

And wouldn't it be better to have it legalized at a federal level? Who is against it being legalized for the most part, liberals or conservatives? I think Obama will reschedule cannabis right before he leaves office, he just doesn't want it to be an issue Hillary has to deal with while she is running for President. You know that rescheduling cannabis will rile up the bible thumping repubs.

Yes, it would be better on a national level. All drugs should be legal at a national level. I think it should be up to the states to decide what's made illegal. If certain types of backwood hicks want to hang together, all the while making everything fun illegal, they will end up doing it in states far away from me. They can pack up, leave here and go congregate into the deep south for all I care. It would make condos at Pot Mountain cheaper, also.

 

[kelly4]

The politicians are pandering and trying to co-opt it.

No, certain Republicans are trying to co-opt it.

However. You said what I said.

It's growing in favor in the Republican population.

No I didn't and no it's not.