?

Log in

 

I didn't think he had it in him... - Rubin

About I didn't think he had it in him...

Previous Entry I didn't think he had it in him... Nov. 3rd, 2004 @ 02:48 pm Next Entry
I must say I'm impressed that Senator Kerry was magnanimous and graciously conceded the election. Even though he would have needed virtually 100% of all provisional and absentee ballots to come in for him to win, I fully expected him to divide this nation further in a court battling death spiral.

"We talked about the danger of division in our country and the need - the desperate need - for unity, for finding common ground and coming together," Kerry said. "Today, I hope we can begin the healing," he said. Kerry told Bush the country was too divided, the source said, and Bush agreed. "We really have to do something about it," Kerry said, according to the official.

I hope that he will keep his word, and he'll be able to help his party to abandon their extreme leftist positions. Perhaps it's a sign that Democrats will start working together for a better America rather than just being partisan bomb throwers. I think there is an actual hope without Tom Daschle.

I'm hopeful, but I'm not holding my breath.
Current Mood: chipperchipper
Leave a comment
[User Picture Icon]
From:yubbie
Date:November 3rd, 2004 12:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
And maybe the GOP can abandon the rightist postions and meet them somewhere in the middle; where most of the rest of the country is. Given that bush got just over 50% of the vote, that means that slightly under *half* the country don't agree he's doing a good job. In a sane world, that would mean adjusting your positions to reflect what that 49% believe. However, the white house aides are already spinning this as a "Mandate from the people", since it's the first election in a while where the winner got more than 50%. A mandate is an election like we used to have back in the Reagan days - you win 80% or more of the vote, you can say you have a mandate.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:November 3rd, 2004 12:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The most Reagan ever won was 59%
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 3rd, 2004 01:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Bush worked well with Texan democrats as Governor. He was so well respected by Texan Democrats that even his democratic Lt. Governor endorsed him for president in 2000.

He hoped to bring to Washington the kind of bipartisan cooperation that had marked his tenure as governor of Texas. As President, while Bush continually extended his hand in the spirit of cooperation to the national democrats, he always ended up pulling back a bloody stump. Somehow in Washington, bipartisanship has been defined as Republicans agreeing 100% with Democrats. Hopefully that is about to change.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 3rd, 2004 01:59 pm (UTC)

Also...

(Link)
Bush got greater than 50% of the popular vote for the first time in more than a decade. Bill Clinton never achieved such a feat, yet never did you hear a call for him to moderate his views to comply with greater than 50% of the electorate he failed to carry.

If you look at the breakdown of votes by county (as seen below), you will see that the overwhelming majority of the nation strongly support Bush. There is no way for democrats to be able to spin him as an illegitimate President any longer.
Bush 2004 victory by county
Colored counties are those where a candidate leads by at least five points with 100% of precincts counted.

Bush has said that we will again attempt to work with Democrats - only time will tell if they will accept his offer.
[User Picture Icon]
From:jazzfish
Date:November 4th, 2004 05:34 am (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
Gosh, if only the population of the US were evenly distributed among all its counties, that map might mean something.

I'm not saying Bush didn't win the popular vote by an acceptable margin: he did.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 07:34 am (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
I just pointed it out because I believe that it shows that Bush has broad support across the nation.
[User Picture Icon]
From:jazzfish
Date:November 4th, 2004 10:10 am (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
No, what it shows is that Bush has broad support in rural areas. You know, the ones where the population isn't as densely clustered. (Or are you saying that people in cities are irrelevant?)

It's a misleading graphic, and claiming that it shows 'broad support' is equally misleading.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 10:41 am (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
You made the entire nation turn gray! *sniff* *sniff* 8-)

If anyone is interested, the county map is still available here.
[User Picture Icon]
From:jazzfish
Date:November 4th, 2004 07:06 pm (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
Your inability to respond to my actual points amuses me greatly.
[User Picture Icon]
From:yubbie
Date:November 4th, 2004 07:31 am (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
How you spin 51% into an over whelming majority is worthy of a democrat...

I realize you're a zealot, but I think bush has to realize that a large portion of the country is terrified of the way his policies are going - leading to ever increasing erosion of privacy, freedom, an economy that's starting to look like the water spiraling the toilet, a national debt balloning out of control, and a complete disregard for what environmental policies will do to the future... I'd really like to see a poll that asks how many people don't think bush is doing a good job, but voted for him because they were afraid to make Kerry be president, and stayed with the evil they knew.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 09:23 am (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
I like you Ron, consider you a friend, and value your opinion... but calling me a zealot is not a good way to open an honest debate. It seems to me you have touched by that same divisiveness I described in my reply to desfido (below). I hope that you will be able to come back from that precipice, so I will keep my hand extended out just in case.
[User Picture Icon]
From:jazzfish
Date:November 4th, 2004 10:34 am (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
Good thing there are no hypocrites in this thread calling Democrats 'partisan bomb throwers,' then.

Oh. Whoops:
Perhaps it's a sign that Democrats will start working together for a better America rather than just being partisan bomb throwers.

My bad.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 11:15 am (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
If you read my reply to desfido, you will see why I said I believed the National DNC was filled with partisan bomb throwers.

If I have knowledge on a subject someone would like to discuss openly, I will attempt to do so. I'm not a Vulcan, so I find it difficult to debate issues complete devoid of emotions, but I do try to keep them in check. Afterwards, I realize there can still be an honest difference of opinions.

However, if the extent of a persons argument is (for example) "Bush Lied", I have tendency not to want to engage them any further.
[User Picture Icon]
From:jazzfish
Date:November 4th, 2004 07:08 pm (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
I am impressed by your ability to build strawmen, not recognising that the Republican party is filled with similar, though opposing, rhetoric. "Baby-killer" immediately comes to mind, as does the "It's your own fault you're poor" idea. ["Social security is doomed" is at the very least a disputed statement.] "All trial lawyers are bloodsucking leeches" comes out pretty often, as well.

Gee, maybe there are partisan bombs thrown by both sides. Maybe an actual spirit of reconciliation would start with saying "That's in the past, we [the duly elected officials and winners] are going to genuinely try to reach out without being snarky this time."

But, no. After all, the Republicans have a 'mandate' to ignore 49% of the country. You've made it clear that reconciliation is code for "smile when we kick you, leftist bastards."
[User Picture Icon]
From:yubbie
Date:November 5th, 2004 12:14 pm (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
You also elected to ignore my points, while standing there with your hand out... Have you ever thought the gop did anything wrong?
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 8th, 2004 06:14 am (UTC)

Re: Also...

(Link)
I didn't comment on your points them because I was ignoring them. I didn't comment because 1) I didn't have the time at the time to fully research a reply, and 2) I was afraid a full reply would be taken as inflammatory as your original and I didn't want to start a fight.

Have you ever thought the gop did anything wrong?

While Bush is not the GOP, he is their most obvious representative, and I have been critical of Bush frequently. here, here, here, here, and here to name a few. I also have often said I think the Libertarians have better ideas than the Republicans, and that it's a pity that they are not one of the 2 major political parties.
From:laughin
Date:November 3rd, 2004 03:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I would have to say that he extended his hand out to Ted Kennedy. Kennedy got what he wanted and then had fun berating Bush the rest of the time. That's what he gets for bipartisanship. Personally, I think Bush is a little TOO bipartisan when it comes to spending.

And, it may be spin, but the GOP controls the House and Senate again. I think it was a mandate - take away NYC, Washington DC, LA and other huge cities where government is king and ya got the Bush supporters.

How about asking the Dems to abandon their leftist positions and meet in the middle? Why is it always the GOP who has to meet in the middle?

It would be nice, honestly, to have a politician, better yet, a LEADER, who can just say "this is what I am going to do while in office" and if he wins, DO IT to the best of their ability.
[User Picture Icon]
From:jazzfish
Date:November 5th, 2004 07:45 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think Bush is a little TOO bipartisan when it comes to spending.

He'll have a chance to rein that in, since the GOP has the Presidency and both houses. Can't blame the fiscal irresponsibility on the Democrats for at least another two years.

I think it was a mandate

It's not a mandate, it's an artifact of a winner-take-all system. Majority rule is not democracy. It's mob rule.

other huge cities where government is king

This is exceptionally funny given the red states' dependence on federal funds.

What I hear you saying here is 'people in cities aren't really America.' I would appreciate it if you would take the time to either expand on this or correct me.

Why is it always the GOP who has to meet in the middle?

*shrug* Name an issue where you'll accept compromise. Not 'my side wins,' actual compromise. Then consider that the Democrats have as much trouble coming up with one as you do.

It would be nice, honestly, to have a politician, better yet, a LEADER, who can just say "this is what I am going to do while in office" and if he wins, DO IT to the best of their ability.

Politics is /about/ compromise. To my understanding, that's the point of the two- or multi-party state.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 5th, 2004 08:40 am (UTC)
(Link)
Politics is /about/ compromise.

As long as compromise doesn't mean comprising your principles, I'm all for it.
One thing I think I would like to see is for Kerry to introduce some legislation into the Senate next year. All through the campaign he said he had a plan for nearly every issue, but I never heard what one it was. If he were to introduce some bills into the Senate, we could hear them and decide if any were good plans - and then urge congress to vote for the good ones. I believe that could be a first step to show that the new spirit of bipartisanship is real.
[User Picture Icon]
From:jazzfish
Date:November 6th, 2004 05:21 am (UTC)
(Link)
Which issues are /you/ willing to compromise on, then?

(I have thoughts rattling around about the desirability of openness to discussion on any subject, but they haven't coalesced yet.)
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 8th, 2004 08:00 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, I think I can/have compromised on several issues. Issues include:

1) Abortion: I believe abortion (not miscarriage) is killing of innocent human life. However, I have come to realize that we can't make it completely illegal unless we can change peoples hearts and then there are my libertarian leaning views that make me believe in less government intervention in general. Though, that does not mean that I think that there shouldn't be any restrictions to abortion.

2) Gay Marriage: I have come to believe that there are many homosexuals that want a normal life with their partners and just want some legal protections for themselves. So, I now believe that government should allow some legal protections possibly through the form of civil unions.

3) War on Drugs: I think drugs are anathema to society. However, I think there is merit in the argument that the war on drugs is a waste of money better spent on treatment than imprisonment.




[User Picture Icon]
From:jazzfish
Date:November 5th, 2004 09:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
If any of my comments were taken as snarky [well, except the first one] then I apologise; that was not the spirit they were offered in. And I /would/ like to hear your [or anyone's] thoughts on the urban vs rural divide, when you've got time.
From:laughin
Date:November 6th, 2004 05:55 am (UTC)
(Link)
it is the time thing... things are a little crazy right now.
[User Picture Icon]
From:desfido
Date:November 3rd, 2004 01:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm curious about which positions that the Democrats have as a party that you consider to be extreme left-wing positions. It seems to me that the Democratic Party is not nearly as extreme in being left-wing as the Republican Party is in being right-wing - and the ways both have chosen to be more moderate seem to be exactly the wrong ways.

I also think it's interesting (though unsurprising) that you imply that the Republicans already were working for a better America. If giving ludicrous amounts of power to the executive branch and then not only not denouncing them or taking it away when its abused, but actually praising and supporting is working for a better America, then I guess what you mean by a better America is what I think of as "many of the bad bits of the USSR". More Republicans need to be willing to take a stand against the party - otherwise, even if there's a specific Republican whose views you mostly agree with, you can't afford to vote for him or her unless those views are also shared by most Republicans (or at least some of the more influential ones), because most of the time, it seems, he or she will vote on party lines even if it goes against what he or she seems to believe. If you can't rely on someone to vote for his or her conscience even if it goes against the party, you have to worry about the much more difficult issue of what The Party thinks about things at least as much as what the individual does.

I do agree that Democrats need to work together more to make America better - for example, acquiring the sort of discipline that Republicans had in the 80s that make claims about the Democrats in the Senate being obstructionist as funny and hypocritical as they are.

The Republicans greatest flaw of the past 10 years has been excessive party discipline, which has led to too many Republicans not getting called on stuff by others their party, and too many Republicans voting for things they at least claim to not support. The Democrats greatest flaw of the past 10 years has been insufficient party discipline, leading to victories that an opposition party should realize it can't allow the controlling party to achieve if it ever wants to unseat them.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 09:00 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm curious about which positions that the Democrats have as a party that you consider to be extreme left-wing positions.

A few example positions (not all - I'm limited in time) that the National Democrats have that I consider extreme are :

Abortion: If you don't support abortion for 100% of woman during the entire nine months of pregnancy, you are misogynist who is against all rights for women. It can't possibly be because there is concern over the life of the child.

Affirmative Action: You are call racist if you don't agree Affirmative Action. We honestly believe that programs such as Affirmative Action divide us. We want the world envisioned by Dr Martin Luther King, a nation where people are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Social Security: Social Security was created in the 1930's when the average life expectancy of men was 62 and woman was 66. It was intended to be help elderly widows, not be a retirement plan. Seniors today look at as a retirement plan. It is a fact that we will not have the resources to fund the system in as little as 20-30 years, so it only seems wise to look for methods to relieve the pressure on the system that can still provide financial support the elderly need. But if you say that, the National Democrats will say you want the elderly to become homeless, eat dog food and/or starve.

Class Warfare: The national Democratic Party continuously tells it's members that it's not fair that some people have more money than other. The rich somehow have their money by stealing it from "you" the working poor. I guess it just never occurs to them that the vast majority of "the rich" have worked hard to become that way. I am somewhat suspicious that a large percentage of the Left that tells you that are the trust fund rich - I suspect their disgust of the rich is more of the division of Old Money vs. New Money (we can't have that riff-raff in our club).

Environmental Issues: The Democrat party continuously tells it's members that Republicans want dirty air and dirty water, which is as wacky as that Captain Planet cartoon. The extreme left will not accept that Republicans want clean air and water just as much they do, but we realize there is a cost to benefit ratio... If it costs $1 billion dollars to achieve a reduction of .001% in emissions, it's probably not worth it.
Now, there are a few individuals/corporations that will attempt to "dump waste" for short term gain, and I don't know a single Republican that does not believe they should be punished for it.

Education: If you don't agree to throwing more money down the same hole then you against educating children. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the government has spent more on education every year with diminishing returns, and that spending more on the same doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes alot more sense to me to find a better method (possible vouchers), than to continue with the same.

Now if you call me a racist, misogynist, homophobic bigot who wants to starve the elderly, make the poor homeless, and children dumb, and to top it off, my real lifetime goal is to destroy the planet... Then I'm sorry, but you are not interested in an honest debate of the issues. You want to divide the country, and you are hoping that the portions on your side divided off is large enough to keep you in power.

[User Picture Icon]
From:desfido
Date:November 4th, 2004 11:17 am (UTC)
(Link)
A few example positions (not all - I'm limited in time) that the National Democrats have that I consider extreme are :

Abortion: If you don't support abortion for 100% of woman during the entire nine months of pregnancy, you are misogynist who is against all rights for women. It can't possibly be because there is concern over the life of the child.


Personally, I tend to be opposed to abortion. Sadly, most of the prominent people arguing against it suck at having logic that is based on premises that most people are willing to accept as true or probably true. It's therefore easy to attack or dismiss such arguments, and then people succumb to ad hominem type fallacies and don't even really listen to the nonsucky arguments.

Regardless, it's fairly clear that in America, most people express something like this: "I'm against abortion, but women should make that choice for themselves." Frankly, based on the only sensible reasons for being against abortion, that thought is pretty obviously stupid (so they're either not saying what they mean, or they're stupid, and I'm willing to believe either); however, it also makes it clear that permitting abortions in fairly broad circumstances is fairly moderate. So while you may be able to refer to it as a left-wing position, I don't think you can refer to it as an extreme one.

Affirmative Action: You are call racist if you don't agree Affirmative Action. We honestly believe that programs such as Affirmative Action divide us. We want the world envisioned by Dr Martin Luther King, a nation where people are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

This is paying attention to the bad arguments for Affirmative Action, and ignoring the good one. This suggests that you either haven't properly considered the issue, or are deliberately attempting to avoid addressing the good argument. Either weakness makes your argument flawed, so please fix this.

In case you're wondering, the good argument is essentially a utilitarian one: experts in military and business issues believe that the proper application of Affirmative Action leads to better military units and better business. I'm not sure I necessarily buy this claim, and I'm enough of an idealist that I'm not sure that this end justifies the means.

As for whether it's an extreme position... I dunno. It seems that it's the specific implementation that sometimes can be extremely leftwing. The basic concept, while left-wing, is not extreme, though, I don't think, based on most reactions to it.

End part one (apparently I went over LJ's comment length limit)
[User Picture Icon]
From:desfido
Date:November 4th, 2004 11:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
Social Security: Social Security was created in the 1930's when the average life expectancy of men was 62 and woman was 66. It was intended to be help elderly widows, not be a retirement plan. Seniors today look at as a retirement plan. It is a fact that we will not have the resources to fund the system in as little as 20-30 years, so it only seems wise to look for methods to relieve the pressure on the system that can still provide financial support the elderly need. But if you say that, the National Democrats will say you want the elderly to become homeless, eat dog food and/or starve.

The problem is that many of the methods suggested for modifying it (regardless of who's doing it) are clearly irresponsible. Nobody's willing to sacrifice anything. This irresponsible behavior seems to be nicely bipartisan; Republicans react the same way to Democratic proposals. I'd probably care more if they weren't both being such idiots about what they propose. But regardless, if you consider this an extreme left-wing position, then I guess the Republican party has some extreme left-wing positions. However, since it seems to be a position that most people adopt, I think calling it extreme might be a bit off.

Class Warfare: The national Democratic Party continuously tells it's members that it's not fair that some people have more money than other. The rich somehow have their money by stealing it from "you" the working poor. I guess it just never occurs to them that the vast majority of "the rich" have worked hard to become that way. I am somewhat suspicious that a large percentage of the Left that tells you that are the trust fund rich - I suspect their disgust of the rich is more of the division of Old Money vs. New Money (we can't have that riff-raff in our club).

Well, while this may be what they're trying to subtextually convey, it's not what they're actually saying exactly. If promoting a progressive tax system is left wing, does that make regressive taxes like sales taxes right wing? While maybe things shouldn't be based off of income, that doesn't seem to be what people bitch about. Honestly, supporting a progressive tax system isn't class warfare. It may be left wing, and it may even be extreme, but it's not nearly as close to being class warfare as, say, increasing sales taxes is, since those screw the people with less resources, and screws them more. If you're honestly opposed to a progressive tax system, I'm curious what you think the tax system should be like. If you say "regressive", then you're either stupid (which I don't believe), or you better have way more money than I think you have. If you say "equal", I want to know why you think that people who have more resources to spare shouldn't be obligated to share more of them, particularly since the ways of extracting money from the government (or preventing them from it extracting you) become more accessible as you get more money (once you get past the "no money" level). If you think that taxes should be an equal proportion of resources, I'm curious as to why you think that's more fair, when what those with less have to give up are more significantly effected by what they have do give up than those with more. If it's because you believe in Supply Side Economics, oh well. But it still makes the "class warfare" comment seem intentionally incendiary; basically, someone thinks the facts contradict your beliefs, and are doing something reasonable based on it. If you think everyone should accept Supply Side Economics as being the right way to do things... fine. But if you think people only reject it because they're trying to be divisive or something, then you're intentionally believing things which you should know are false (then again, you're a Bush supporter, so why should that be surprising (low blow, but when the shoe fits)).

End Part II
[User Picture Icon]
From:desfido
Date:November 4th, 2004 11:24 am (UTC)
(Link)
Environmental Issues: The Democrat party continuously tells it's members that Republicans want dirty air and dirty water, which is as wacky as that Captain Planet cartoon. The extreme left will not accept that Republicans want clean air and water just as much they do, but we realize there is a cost to benefit ratio... If it costs $1 billion dollars to achieve a reduction of .001% in emissions, it's probably not worth it.
Now, there are a few individuals/corporations that will attempt to "dump waste" for short term gain, and I don't know a single Republican that does not believe they should be punished for it.


Both major parties are essentially ineffectual on environmental issues, except for maybe screwing things up more. Mostly because neither is properly taking all the economic variables in to account when they figure out the costs. Obviously, at least some Republicans try to do something positive about the environment and avoid doing anything bad (George H.W. Bush, one of the two possibly non-horrible presidents who has served in my lifetime (the other is Carter, since he served for about my first 7 months) is an example of one in my opinion). While this is an example of a way that Democrats *may* be divisive, it doesn't seem to be an example of an extreme left wing position. It seems to be an example of an activity they engage in that you don't like, not a policy they support that you don't like because it's extremely leftwing. You seem to being doing this for a few of these responses. But if you genuinely believe that the Democrats are too extreme in what they want for the environment, I'm surprised. And if you think Republicans really take costs in to account appropriately, then I'm just going to be laughing too much to respond appropriately. Please tell me, anyway, though, if that's the case, since I could use a laugh.

End Part III
[User Picture Icon]
From:desfido
Date:November 4th, 2004 11:26 am (UTC)
(Link)
Education: If you don't agree to throwing more money down the same hole then you against educating children. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the government has spent more on education every year with diminishing returns, and that spending more on the same doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes alot more sense to me to find a better method (possible vouchers), than to continue with the same.

Nice concept. Sounds great. Too bad nobody does anything real about it. And the only seriously considered solutions are the ones that suck. Oh well. This is another position that I believe may be left-wing, but based on what can be gleaned, it certainly can't be considered extreme.

Now if you call me a racist, misogynist, homophobic bigot who wants to starve the elderly, make the poor homeless, and children dumb, and to top it off, my real lifetime goal is to destroy the planet... Then I'm sorry, but you are not interested in an honest debate of the issues. You want to divide the country, and you are hoping that the portions on your side divided off is large enough to keep you in power.

You know, I don't think you're a racist, misogynistic, homophobic bigot. You just support people who are one or more of those things (especially homophobic). Take, for example, the Senator Kentucky just reelected. (BTW, it's interesting that you mention the homophobia here, but not the related policies... so I'm curious, do you support them? If you do, I have to admit I'm disappointed in you.) Honestly, based on your response, it's not so much that the positions are extreme - you just seem to get upset if the views differ from yours; how can you reconcile this with your comments about divisivenes. I will sadly admit that the stances Republicans tend to take on issues related to homosexuals are not extreme, even though I think they are utterly, utterly wrong. I hope they change their positions on this and a few other issues soon, or loosen the party discipline a bit, so that I have a broader pool of decent candidates to choose from.

I also found your use of "you" interesting, since you seem to be attributing views to me that you shouldn't (since, for example, if you think I'm a Democrat, then you're suffering a misapprehension). Perhaps you just aren't as careful about your pronoun usage as I like, but I am curious if you really meant to use "you" all the places you did, or if in some of them, you meant "one" or "Democrats" or some such thing.

End Part IV, End Post
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 11:51 am (UTC)
(Link)
Nice concept. Sounds great. Too bad nobody does anything real about it.

That's because anyone that makes any kind of suggestion to solve the problem (other than more money) is immediately shot down with a personal attack. After a while, even the most idealistic person becomes gun-shy and comes to accept the status quo.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 12:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You in this sense was the pronoun for Democrats/liberals/someone not you as in Jay. I think you know me well enough to know that I don't think you think me a racist/homophobe/etc... or at least some more coherent sentence containing know and think. But it is disturbing that you'd think that the Republicans I support with similar views obviously must be. There seems to be some sort of disconnect.

BTW, it's interesting that you mention the homophobia here, but not the related policies... so I'm curious, do you support them?

I had Gay Marriage on the list of talking points (along with several other items), it didn't make the final post because I didn't have time to fully develop all the points.

I have said all along that I believe that Marriage is a religious sacrament between a man , a woman, and God. I do not feel government has the right to attempt to redefine it.
I also don't beleive government has any right to make laws making homosexual acts illegal. I believe government should remain neutral. It should neither say that gay is good, nor that gay is bad.

[User Picture Icon]
From:mrstickman
Date:November 5th, 2004 04:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
How do you feel about interracial marriage? How would you have felt about it, say, three and a half decades ago, before the federal government redefined marriage by dropping the words "of the same race" from it?

How do you feel, in general, about the fact that there are civil laws about your religious institution? How do you feel about the fact that there's a push for an amendment to the Constitution that deals specifically with an institution of your religion?

[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 8th, 2004 08:17 am (UTC)
(Link)
I beleive that it was wrong for government to attempt to restrict interracial marriages... and I believe there was no method to stop churches from performing such marriages. While they might not have had any legal binding, they were still binding in the eyes of God. I feel I cannot say the same about same sex unions.

How do you feel about the fact that there's a push for an amendment to the Constitution that deals specifically with an institution of your religion?

The Constitution spells out the limits of government and the rights of the people, so I am uncomfortable with a specific amendment to ban same sex unions to be included in the Constitution. However, there many activist judges out there that are attempting to make an amendment the only solution.
[User Picture Icon]
From:mrstickman
Date:November 8th, 2004 04:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
What about other religions, ones that allow same-sex marriages? Are their sacraments less valid than those in your religion?

You didn't answer my question about how you'd've felt about interracial marriage thirty-five years ago, before activist judges changed the definition of marriage in the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia. I'm also curious what position your church officially took on interracial marriage then. Exactly what religion do you practice? I'll try to look it up.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 11:44 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm not argueing that someone who honestly believes in Affirmative Action (or "Choice" for that matter) is an extremist. I'm argueing that the positions become extreme when they are not open to the fact that there can be an honest disagreement against it without being a racist.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rbandrews
Date:November 3rd, 2004 09:23 pm (UTC)

After hearing Mark and Jay talk about this post, I had to look...

(Link)
Adam and I were discussing last night whether you would gloat.
Thanks for proving me right.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 09:11 am (UTC)

Re: After hearing Mark and Jay talk about this post, I had to look...

(Link)
I can only assume you were on the side of not gloating. I was seriously impressed by the graciousness of John Kerry. He could have easily pressed for a legal battle in Ohio... In fact, I hear that pressure was placed on him from as close a source as his own running mate, John Edwards, to do just that.

The fact that he preferred to unite the nation showed to me that he had a lot more character than I thought. That's a compliment, not a gloat.

Gloating would be:
Ha! ha! ha! Stand by for four more years of liberal hell, you stupid liberal! Ha! ha! ha!
[User Picture Icon]
From:rbandrews
Date:November 4th, 2004 09:44 am (UTC)

Re: After hearing Mark and Jay talk about this post, I had to look...

(Link)
I can only assume you were on the side of not gloating.

What makes you think I would give you any credit at all?
There was only one side anyway. We agreed that you'd gloat the first chance you got, and what do you know?
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 10:05 am (UTC)

Gloating

(Link)
So let me see if I understand this correctly... because I replied with an example of what an actual gloat might look like, you claim that I, in fact, did gloat?
Next you'll be saying, "Questions Are A Burden For Others; Answers A Prison For Oneself."
[User Picture Icon]
From:desfido
Date:November 4th, 2004 11:32 am (UTC)

Re: Gloating

(Link)
You must be intentionally misreading his comments, because I know you're smarter than that. It's clear from Ross's first comment that he believes your post to be gloating, or the post in combination with the comments you made prior to his first comment. I'm not sure I'd have referred to it as gloating, but I also don't think it's unreasonable for Ross to interpret it that way, and refer to it that way.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rbandrews
Date:November 4th, 2004 12:13 pm (UTC)

Re: Gloating

(Link)
Patrick's arguments, as I'm sure he's discovered, work better when he intentionally misses the point.
I thank both of you for reminding me why I generally avoid interacting with Patrick, and people of that level of zealotry in general.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 12:43 pm (UTC)

Re: Gloating

(Link)
I'm sorry, but complimenting Kerry is not in anyway gloating... and I think the my comments so far (and nearly everyone else that has posted) have been thoughtful. If I had really been interested in gloating, I could have been all over it last night at Spiel. I don't beleive I said even one word.
It seems what Ross really wants is an emotional outburst in response, so he can say, "See I told you so." I afraid he won't get (at least not in this case 8-).
[User Picture Icon]
From:rubinpdf
Date:November 4th, 2004 12:48 pm (UTC)

Most Successful Post Ever

(Link)
I want to thank everyone for making this my most successful post ever. Your 30 comments (so far) prove You like me. You really like me.
(Leave a comment)
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com