let's be honest: it's the Republicans who ruin everything

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by cobl04

There wouldn't be a focus if the law changed. People aren't going to shut up about it until the laws change.

I don't want them to shut up, I want them to include other things into their arguments as well. Even as the laws continue to change, problems will continue. It is always that way. There are still women's rights problems decades after we were granted "equality". There is still racism that leaks into the business world. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean the war for equality is over.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

I just don't think it's fair to have a segment of the population sit around waiting to be treated fairly, especially when it would cost nothing to do so

And I don't think it's fair to focus on one group of minorities over another.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

I'd argue that there are few bigger fish to fry than civil rights and equality

Quite frankly, I'm inclined to believe that if you aren't willing to be forward-thinking in civil rights and equality, you aren't fit to lead your nation. I think the leadership ability of someone rests largely on how they treat the people who follow them.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

And I don't think it's fair to focus on one group of minorities over another.

Right. None of those fish are bigger than the others

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Quite frankly, I'm inclined to believe that if you aren't willing to be forward-thinking in civil rights and equality, you aren't fit to lead your nation. I think the leadership ability of someone rests largely on how they treat the people who follow them.

I agree with this 100%.

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Right. None of those fish are bigger than the others

They're not. Equality is equality and if one is pro equality they need to bring up all aspects of it, not just one group of "minorities". They bring up that group of minorities, along with other groups, and the major issues linking them together. Because ultimately we can debate gay rights, or women's rights, or black rights, or hispanic rights, or poverty rights (all specifically, I mean) until the end of the earth but if we don't fix a system built to discriminate in the first place it's not going to change anything. While it's important that we get these laws passed, it's also important that people realize we're just treating the symptoms and not the actual problem. One should treat both the symptoms and the problem itself.

Even years after laws were passed for racial equality there is still a massive racism problem, just as there will continue to be a massive anti-gay problem for years to come.

[Irvine511]

i guess my original intent wasn't to say that the GOP is wrong.

it's to say that the GOP disregards reality ("truthiness"), creates its own reality (echos of the Bush administration's claim circa-2003 that they are reality creators), and views itself as under siege and at work and thus unwilling to compromise.

where did this come from? honestly, where? what has happened since the 1990s?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

it's to say that the GOP disregards reality ("truthiness"), creates its own reality (echos of the Bush administration's claim circa-2003 that they are reality creators), and views itself as under siege and at work and thus unwilling to compromise.

This is a common thread that I've seen not only in their politicians but also their followers. Always playing victim, rules don't apply to them, and compromise has become a dirty word.

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'm curious to know the answer to that, too. I honestly don't know.

There's a book I saw at work a while back, it's called 'God's Right Hand', I believe, and it talks about how the evangelical Christian movement got itself tied in with the GOP. Maybe I should look at that book, I think it sounds like it might deal in some aspects with the very issues you wanted to bring up in this topic, Irvine. I'd definitely like to explore and discuss that issue more deeply.

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

They're not. Equality is equality and if one is pro equality they need to bring up all aspects of it, not just one group of "minorities". They bring up that group of minorities, along with other groups, and the major issues linking them together. Because ultimately we can debate gay rights, or women's rights, or black rights, or hispanic rights, or poverty rights (all specifically, I mean) until the end of the earth but if we don't fix a system built to discriminate in the first place it's not going to change anything. While it's important that we get these laws passed, it's also important that people realize we're just treating the symptoms and not the actual problem. One should treat both the symptoms and the problem itself.

Even years after laws were passed for racial equality there is still a massive racism problem, just as there will continue to be a massive anti-gay problem for years to come.

This is a very fair, very true argument. We need to make this country better for everyone across the board. Nobody should ever feel unwelcome here, or be denied the same rights and privileges that others get to enjoy.

[MrsSpringsteen]

By Isa-Lee Wolf | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Tue, May 1, 2012

Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Poster Child for GOP's Problems


COMMENTARY | Elisabeth Hasselbeck is everything that's wrong with Republicans. Discussing Osama bin Laden's death on the May 1 episode of "The View," with unmasked glee, she giggled and said, "I think of all the people who voted for Obama, right? Wearing tie-dyed t-shirts with peace signs and protesting are now choking on their Ben & Jerry's ice cream basically because their president blows the brains out of somebody and is now deemed, as the New York Times had it this weekend, as 'Warrior in Chief.' I think he's done a great job in terms of military experience right now, but they are eating their words."

Quick question. Which words? That we wanted to shower bin Laden with peace, love and understanding? Darn, I missed that meeting.

Nonetheless, thanks, Elisabeth, for illustrating it so clearly. Not your point; your point is ludicrous and defies logic or relationship to reality. No, thanks for a clean example of the current Republican knack for taking anything with a hint of liberal, dehumanizing it, debasing it, and then claiming it proves your point.

I also think you've confused voting for Obama with being an extra in the musical "Hair," but that's a different issue completely.

Through careful planning and great use of military resources, our president tracked and eliminated our most wanted fugitive. He ordered the kill. Yet you minimized, as Joy Behar pointed out, what would have been touted as a massive Republican victory, if only a Republican accomplished it, as "blowing the brains out of somebody."

It wasn't just somebody, Elisabeth. He was the excuse for not one, but two wars. It was the man who killed the most Americans on our own soil since the Civil War. It was the man who, periodically, released tapes vowing to do it again.

You don't think his elimination, without martyrdom, without reprisal, is worthy of the title "Warrior in Chief"? Your buddy George W. Bush couldn't do it. Mitt Romney said in 2007 that he wouldn't bother going to such lengths, a position he's now reversed.

It's difficult to try to toe the company line with this president. The Republican tactic over the past three-and-a-bit years has been to find fault with everything the president does. Supported payroll tax cuts in 2001? He wants them? Hate them now. Individual insurance mandate for Obamacare? It's evil. Except when Republicans called for it. Take out Osama bin Laden?

Hmm, that's a tricky one.

Well, the best you can do is denounce him for counting it among his presidential accomplishments, and claim that the mere mention of it is "politicizing" the operation he successfully lead. Good job, Elisabeth.

Despite constant roadblocks, Barack Obama still does his job. One of the things he did, and we elected him to do, fully, consciously, and without thought to our choice of ice-cream, is keep our country safe. What did he need to do to facilitate that goal? Eliminate bin Laden.

Maybe the centrists and independents the Republicans so sorely need would be more inclined to pay attention to the GOP if their members didn't pretend that every action from Obama - even when it aligns with Republican values - is in direct opposition to both their ideology and the country's interests. Insulting those swing voters by implying they're clichéd "dirty hippies" merely for voting for the president really can't help. While polls don't track the percentage of "dirty hippies" voting for a candidate, they do track moderates; 60 percent of moderates voted for Obama in 2008.

And one more thanks, Elisabeth, for demonstrating so well why they should do it again.

[digitize]

I wish the name "Osama bin Laden" could be banned from this election. Obviously the Navy SEALs who carried the attack were immensely talented, and the whole operation was amazing (even someone who disagreed with it would have to admit as much), but it's absurd to say that any president very broadly within the American political mainstream would not have done the same thing as Obama, especially given political pressures. It's also absurd to say that Democrats would generally disagree with such a decision.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

our country was never meant to be a two party system. and that's the problem.

if you're a republican who happens to agree with some things that are typically more liberal, you're shamed and said that you might as well be a democrat, and vice versa.

it's stagnated progress in our nation, and both parties make me sick to my stomach.

there's a ton of shit that republicans are dead wrong on but refuse to give up on because of some bullshit moral high ground. and there's a ton of shit that democrats are fucked on too. you can't just use deductive fuck reasoning and decide "hey, i think that's a good idea" if your so aligned with one side or another that you refuse to stray from party lines.

fuck 'em both.

[Moonlit_Angel]

"The Daily Show" had a bit the other night with conservative commentators coming out and criticizing Obama for "politicizing" Osama's death, and not giving credit where credit was supposedly due to the Bush adminstration.

I pretty much sat there slack-jawed during the clips they kept showing. REALLY, Republicans? You're bitching about someone politicizing something? Really? And what the hell are we supposed to give the Bush administration credit for? Taking our eye off Osama to focus on Iraq for most of the decade and blow money and resources in an area we didn't need to go into and which didn't have a single tie to 9/11? NOT finding Osama for 10 damned years, so Obama could have the chance to do it himself?

Dumbasses and sore losers, the lot of them.

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

our country was never meant to be a two party system. and that's the problem.

if you're a republican who happens to agree with some things that are typically more liberal, you're shamed and said that you might as well be a democrat, and vice versa.

it's stagnated progress in our nation, and both parties make me sick to my stomach.

there's a ton of shit that republicans are dead wrong on but refuse to give up on because of some bullshit moral high ground. and there's a ton of shit that democrats are fucked on too. you can't just use deductive fuck reasoning and decide "hey, i think that's a good idea" if your so aligned with one side or another that you refuse to stray from party lines.

fuck 'em both.

The bigger problem with this country's party system is the fact that both liberals and conservatives would be considered right wing in many other countries. We don't actually have a (large enough) extremist left wing to balance out the extremist right wing so we end up with a very conservative nation, wondering why.

[U2DMfan]

It doesn't make any difference what we believe. We should be able to believe whatever the fuck we want, that's the whole idea of democracy.

The problem is, there are only two (morally corrupt) choices on the menu and there is no real way to remedy that. If people had real choices, the people could fix the government themselves and fashion it any way we want. That's supposed to be how it works.

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference that Obama is considered a "liberal" in America and center-Right anywhere else, except perhaps only to Leftists themselves. And if there is one thing we categorically don't need, is more extremists on either side.

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

It doesn't make any difference what we believe. We should be able to believe whatever the fuck we want, that's the whole idea of democracy.

The problem is, there are only two (morally corrupt) choices on the menu and there is no real way to remedy that. If people had real choices, the people could fix the government themselves and fashion it any way we want. That's supposed to be how it works.

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference that Obama is considered a "liberal" in America and center-Right anywhere else, except perhaps only to Leftists themselves. And if there is one thing we categorically don't need, is more extremists on either side.

I don't care which political spectrum Obama is from. The issue is that we have the illusion of choice (which you acknowledged). Republicans and Democrats are actually not all that different. We've come to a point where no matter who you vote for the same things are going to happen. It's become a popularity contest to see which president is the most "likeable". People live under the illusion that replacing a democratic president with a republican one, or vice versa, is actually going to change something.

Technically, the house of representatives was never meant to last forever. It was a temporary solution to deal with the fact that colonies were so far away from each other and it would take forever to send things by mail. It's outdated, unneeded, and not even representing us anymore.