The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-04-2013, 03:49 PM   #76
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
No. The Census Bureau projects that in the 2040s America will be a minority majority nation.

Considering that, plus how unpopular the GOP is with minorities. . . they will fight a lot of tough battles in areas that are traditionally strongholds of theirs that have very rapidly rising immigrant/ethnic populations. States like Arizona, Texas, etc. will come in play. Texas would be a huge loss for the R's because it has been a stronghold for them for ages. However, with the rising Hispanic demographic there (and what it accounts for in voting % -- which will only increase as population increases) they are going to have trouble.

It really is just common sense. They will do their best (probably this next election) to put a guy like Rubio or Jindal on the ticket to try and shake away the old, angry white man stigma -- but the stigma will continue to exist, and it won't help them because their reasons for doing it will be self-evident. It is hard (and going to be almost impossible) to wipe away decades of social/domestic policy and rhetoric which demonized different people.

Just my thoughts.
No, you're absolutely right. The only way the Republican Party can remain legitimate long-term is to espouse some of the social ideas of the libertarians and oust the extremists from the platform. This will mean getting rid of the anti-gay, anti-abortion, and religiously radical views in their party.

You're already starting to see it with the comments made by guys like Jindal, Christie and even Priebus. But then you have guys like Ted Cruz who are nothing more than saber rattlers supported by the tea party radicals. The Republicans are at about the 1855 stage of their Civil War. Everyone knows its coming:; all it will take is the wrong person earning the nomination to set off the fireworks.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 05:05 PM   #77
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,237

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
No, you're absolutely right. The only way the Republican Party can remain legitimate long-term is to espouse some of the social ideas of the libertarians and oust the extremists from the platform. This will mean getting rid of the anti-gay, anti-abortion, and religiously radical views in their party.

You're already starting to see it with the comments made by guys like Jindal, Christie and even Priebus. But then you have guys like Ted Cruz who are nothing more than saber rattlers supported by the tea party radicals. The Republicans are at about the 1855 stage of their Civil War. Everyone knows its coming:; all it will take is the wrong person earning the nomination to set off the fireworks.
What are the social ideas of libertarians? I rarely hear anything coming out of the mouth of a libertarian that a Republican/conservative doesn't say a thousand times.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 05:50 PM   #78
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
What are the social ideas of libertarians? I rarely hear anything coming out of the mouth of a libertarian that a Republican/conservative doesn't say a thousand times.
That's because most people who claim to be libertarians are not. They're just mad their party lost and are looking for answers. Don't forget that Republicanism used to stand for small government in all areas until they got to a point where they realize they couldn't win elections without partnering with the religous right. A proverbial deal with the devil which couldn't be more ironic.

B-Large(?) posted a link to their social idea in another thread. Basically they want to take the idea of small government and apply it to everything, including social issues. That means the government stays out of your personal life. You can smoke what you want, **** who you want, marry who you want (within reason, obviously. They're not for incest like nyuk seemed to think).

The problem with libertarianism IMO is its a rigid philosophy based in an ideological vacuum. Nothing I have seen from libertarianism in the way of economic policy has even a modicum of a chance of working, let alone being implemented. Small government is a great idea, but you can't get a government of 300 million people to be as small a libertarians want it to be. It's just not feasible.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 06:13 PM   #79
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,184
Default

Most libertarians are very doctrinaire, which puts them into silly territory in terms of politics and economics, and makes them struggle to win elections for 3rd Assistant Dogcatcher. Not a bad thing.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 07:33 PM   #80
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,033
Default

If liberals do kep power for a long time it can't last. Eventually everyone will be taxed so high there will be a backlash back to conservatism. Conservatives not worried because we know the liberals theory of high taxes, high govt spending and low morals will eventually lead to their demise. All we have to do is wait a bit more. Hell what was this months economic growth? i haven't had a chance to see if it was released yet. But i bet it comes in just enough to avoid telling us we are in a recession. What maybe 1-2% at most if it kept up for the whole yr. They will be like growth was .5 % we are on our way, don't worry things are great. Hell wait until Obamacare totally blows up. The dirty secret is the cost of healthcare on the exchanges going to be atronomical and crush the lower middle class, or the fed govt as they try and subsisize it. Its amusing how liberals on the board really think its going to work somehow. Heads buried firmly up asses!

Last edited by cutthemdown; 05-04-2013 at 07:39 PM..
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 07:30 AM   #81
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
No, you're absolutely right. The only way the Republican Party can remain legitimate long-term is to espouse some of the social ideas of the libertarians and oust the extremists from the platform. This will mean getting rid of the anti-gay, anti-abortion, and religiously radical views in their party.

You're already starting to see it with the comments made by guys like Jindal, Christie and even Priebus. But then you have guys like Ted Cruz who are nothing more than saber rattlers supported by the tea party radicals. The Republicans are at about the 1855 stage of their Civil War. Everyone knows its coming:; all it will take is the wrong person earning the nomination to set off the fireworks.
Finally somebody who sees the obviousness of the situation.... good post, IMHO. My frustration with the GOP is their accurate diagnosis of the issues that face the party, but they always prescribe the same old remedy- more of the same. I am often dumbfounded when I find fellow conservatives re-entreching and still work under the assumption that the message is fine they just have to do a better job of communicating it.. problem is, they are communicating to a changing audience.


***I don't think GOP need to abandon their abortion stance per se, I don't believe there is anything wrong with a respect for human life, at any stage of the process, in fact I support their position while at the same time respect the rights of protections under law... tradtionally the issue from most conservatives is the inability to face the outward reality that kids have sex no matter how much you tell them not to, and that teaching kids about safe sex and brith control mitigate that issue- preach abstinance, work in the reality of birth control.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 07:43 AM   #82
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Conservatives not worried because we know the liberals theory of high taxes, high govt spending and low morals will eventually lead to their demise. All we have to do is wait a bit more.
cutthemdown has the "liberals theory" all figured out. Einstein was too busy with his theory of relativity to come up with this one, apparently.
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 08:49 AM   #83
Blart
I'm gay for the Broncos!
 
Blart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,910

Adopt-a-Bronco:
all @ same time
Default

The GOP fever was going to break when Obama beat the pants off McCain.

Then it was going to break because of how dire the nation's situation was.

Then it was going to break once they lost on health care.

Then it was going to break when they became responsible for running things post 2010.

Then it was going to break after the debt ceiling fiasco

Then it was going to break when Obama won again

And instead it is just getting more and more crazy, furious, and organized. Don't underestimate any of these guys. As 2012 showed all you need is one big backer for the money and you can go the distance.
Blart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 08:57 AM   #84
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,237

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
That's because most people who claim to be libertarians are not. They're just mad their party lost and are looking for answers. Don't forget that Republicanism used to stand for small government in all areas until they got to a point where they realize they couldn't win elections without partnering with the religous right. A proverbial deal with the devil which couldn't be more ironic.

B-Large(?) posted a link to their social idea in another thread. Basically they want to take the idea of small government and apply it to everything, including social issues. That means the government stays out of your personal life. You can smoke what you want, **** who you want, marry who you want (within reason, obviously. They're not for incest like nyuk seemed to think).

The problem with libertarianism IMO is its a rigid philosophy based in an ideological vacuum. Nothing I have seen from libertarianism in the way of economic policy has even a modicum of a chance of working, let alone being implemented. Small government is a great idea, but you can't get a government of 300 million people to be as small a libertarians want it to be. It's just not feasible.
what about abortion? Should gov. Stay out of the way on this?
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 09:20 AM   #85
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,606
Default

Quote:
Iíve also seen what happens to Republicans who dare to even contemplate cooperation with the White House. When Congressman Scott Rigell of Virginia accepted the presidentís invitation to join him at an event highlighting the shipyard jobs that sequestration would destroy in his district, the two men had a warm and constructive conversation aboard Air Force One. The president talked about his willingness to pursue entitlement reform. Rigell said he was open to closing tax loopholes for the wealthy. In return, he was threatened with a primary challenge by his local Tea Party, attacked by Grover Norquist as a ďcheap date,Ē and flooded with nasty calls and emails from conservative activists.

If youíre a Republican in Congress, whatís more likely to sway your voteóa trip on Air Force One and a personal plea from Barack Obama, or the threat of a Tea Party challenge thatís taken down so many of your colleagues in recent elections?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...rom-below.html
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 09:49 AM   #86
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,606
Default

Evidence of GOP desperation:

Quote:
Ohio Republicans now want to punish state universities that encourage students to cast a ballot. Under a budget amendment filed by Republicans in the Ohio House, state universities that provide documents enabling students to register to vote in their college town, rather than in the state where their parents reside, will be forbidden from charging those students out-of-state tuition. Thus, the amendment would effectively reduce the funding of state schools that assist their students in registering to vote.

This is the second GOP attempt to restrict college students from voting in just the past month. About a month ago, a North Carolina Republican lawmaker filed a bill that would raise taxes on families with college students if the student registers to vote at school rather than in their parentsí hometown.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...dents-to-vote/
TonyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 10:06 AM   #87
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
what about abortion? Should gov. Stay out of the way on this?
Well, like B-Large said, you can have a pro-life stance and still not be a crazy person. Hell, you can be a liberal and still have an end game that includes the banning of abortion in all but the most extreme of cases. But as I said in the other thread (and if you'd like details, my post was here http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=499), if you want to ban abortion, you had better be prepared to address all of the surrounding issues which contribute to the reason why people have them in the first place.

If we address sex education, welfare and the rest of the stuff, the number of abortions will go down naturally, because most people don't have abortions just to have them. At that point you can say, "okay, now that we've made it so that you can adequately care for your child, it's no longer legal to have an abortion except in these rare cases." Right now, I'm for a mother's right to choose, but if we can improve the plight of the people actually getting abortions, I'd vote for a constitutional ban on abortion in a heartbeat.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 10:19 AM   #88
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,237

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Well, like B-Large said, you can have a pro-life stance and still not be a crazy person. Hell, you can be a liberal and still have an end game that includes the banning of abortion in all but the most extreme of cases. But as I said in the other thread (and if you'd like details, my post was here http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=499), if you want to ban abortion, you had better be prepared to address all of the surrounding issues which contribute to the reason why people have them in the first place.

If we address sex education, welfare and the rest of the stuff, the number of abortions will go down naturally, because most people don't have abortions just to have them. At that point you can say, "okay, now that we've made it so that you can adequately care for your child, it's no longer legal to have an abortion except in these rare cases." Right now, I'm for a mother's right to choose, but if we can improve the plight of the people actually getting abortions, I'd vote for a constitutional ban on abortion in a heartbeat.
I guess we'll have to differ on that,I believe abortion should available in any circumstance. Gov. Shouldn't dictate when you can or can't have a legal medical procedure.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 12:11 PM   #89
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,735
Default

^This issue was never about whether you can do something that's legal. It's always been about whether something should be legal or illegal. We all believe that it should be illegal to kill a human individual. We just have different interpretations. Some people (including some scientists) interpret that the unique human individual is created at conception. When should they get rights to their life's potential that already exists in their DNA.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 12:48 PM   #90
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,237

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
^This issue was never about whether you can do something that's legal. It's always been about whether something should be legal or illegal. We all believe that it should be illegal to kill a human individual. We just have different interpretations. Some people (including some scientists) interpret that the unique human individual is created at conception. When should they get rights to their life's potential that already exists in their DNA.
BS. Gov getting involved in what a women does with her body or what's within her body doesn't count. Thanks for the hypocrisy. DNA,my ass. Constitution doesn't base rights on DNA.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 02:16 PM   #91
Pick Six
Armchair Poster
 
Pick Six's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Topeka, KS
Posts: 22,734

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Isaiah Burse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
BS. Gov getting involved in what a women does with her body or what's within her body doesn't count. Thanks for the hypocrisy. DNA,my ass. Constitution doesn't base rights on DNA.
So, in your opinion, when does life begin? Does it magically become a baby when the tyke breathes the same air that we breathe?
Pick Six is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 02:33 PM   #92
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,237

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crushaholic View Post
So, in your opinion, when does life begin? Does it magically become a baby when the tyke breathes the same air that we breathe?
The question is,when is it no longer a part of the woman's body? Or should I say the constitution only applies once you're born.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 03:02 PM   #93
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crushaholic View Post
So, in your opinion, when does life begin? Does it magically become a baby when the tyke breathes the same air that we breathe?
Life began about 4 billion years ago, and is a continuous process.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 03:27 PM   #94
Pick Six
Armchair Poster
 
Pick Six's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Topeka, KS
Posts: 22,734

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Isaiah Burse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
The question is,when is it no longer a part of the woman's body? Or should I say the constitution only applies once you're born.
All of these states (38 of them) have laws in place to punish people who kill the mother, effectively killing the unborn child. At that point, it becomes two counts of murder. It's either a living person, or it's not a living person. Logic tells us that it can't work both ways...

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...tate-laws.aspx

Last edited by Pick Six; 05-06-2013 at 03:29 PM..
Pick Six is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 04:49 PM   #95
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
BS. Gov getting involved in what a women does with her body or what's within her body doesn't count. Thanks for the hypocrisy. DNA,my ass. Constitution doesn't base rights on DNA.
The Constitution bases rights on individuals. It doesn't define when an individual human becomes an individual person. The human embryo is a "totally unique being" (or individual) with a DNA combination from both offspring. Scientifically, it's human. Legally, it's not a person yet. It's illegal to kill people, but it's not illegal to kill human beings before they become people.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 04:59 PM   #96
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,237

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
The Constitution bases rights on individuals. It doesn't define when an individual human becomes an individual person. The human embryo is a "totally unique being" (or individual) with a DNA combination from both offspring. Scientifically, it's human. Legally, it's not a person yet. It's illegal to kill people, but it's not illegal to kill human beings before they become people.
The constitution as scotus ruled gives a women a right for this legal medical procedure. You may disagree with it but it is what it is. The constitution only applies once you are born.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 05:06 PM   #97
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,237

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crushaholic View Post
All of these states (38 of them) have laws in place to punish people who kill the mother, effectively killing the unborn child. At that point, it becomes two counts of murder. It's either a living person, or it's not a living person. Logic tells us that it can't work both ways...

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...tate-laws.aspx
What can I say either they are trying have it both ways or these states are trying to undo roe v wade by trying to establish a fetus as a person via dbl homicide.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 07:03 PM   #98
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,722
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
The question is,when is it no longer a part of the woman's body? Or should I say the constitution only applies once you're born.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 07:08 PM   #99
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,722
Default

errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2013, 07:11 PM   #100
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,722
Default

errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:50 AM.


Denver Broncos