Texas GOP Platform...rightwingers, please defend it

Good grief another Neo-Con gay bashing. The only reason you should pay attention to this guy is because if history is any guide, in another month or so he will come out of the closet.

Oh, there are individual differences. Obama is far better than Bush economically. It was Bush’s policies that got us into the mess we’re in now, and because of Obama’s change in policy, we were saved from falling into a depression, and now things are slowly improving.

But as parties go, both are majority corporatist, and majority rules. Sure, the Republicans are pretty close to 100% in the pockets of corporations and the wealthy, and don’t pretend to be anything otherwise (and yet people still vote for them… go figure). The Democrats are less beholden to moneyed interests, but are still over 50% corporatist, and among these corporatists are a small but powerful cadre of conservadems like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson who are perennial obstacles to change for the better. So unless major changes are made within the Democratic Party, what we have is still Republican vs. Republican Lite.

In the meantime, I vote mainly on social policy, because there is a stark difference between the two parties here. I much prefer the “Do your own thing” attitude of the Dems over the “Thou Shalt Not” authoritarianism of the Pubs.

I wonder if the Dems will defend Biden’s use of the such an absurd comparison. He really isn’t the brightest VP is he? He’s dumber than Gore and that says a lot right there IMHO.

nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/201 … krieg.html

:ponder: :s :eh:

[quote=“Chewycorns”]I wonder if the Dems will defend Biden’s use of the such an absurd comparison. He really isn’t the brightest VP is he? He’s dumber than Gore and that says a lot right there IMHO.

nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/201 … krieg.html[/quote]

What nonsense. Blitzkrieg is a very commonly used word. It barely has Nazi connotations. What desperation to try to make what needs no defense into the indefensible.

:ponder: :s :eh:[/quote]
Was McCain for gay marriage? Of course not. So between McCain and Obama, on this particular issue they cancel each other out. (In any case, in the US, even if do you support gay marriage, you have to say you don’t if you want any hope of being elected president. Just like you have to show yourself to be a churchgoer, and other such BS.)

But Obama is better socially than McCain on other gay rights issues and abortion, as well as plenty of other social issues.

By the way, Obama isn’t all the Democrats.

:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: That’s why I support Ron Paul. All you expat lefties can hate on him all you want, but you can never call him a phony or a hypocrite.[/quote]
Yeah, but you can call him a schwanz.

But all rhetoric aside, do you seriously see “Dems and Pubs are essentially the same economically”? I agree they’re both heavily swayed by big corporations, but there are still HUGE differences in what they would do if they had the power to do so - their platforms. Just look at the Obama in the first 2 years, the efforts he’s pushed - right or wrong, successful or failures - are almost totally different from what W and the Republicans did or would have done. And remember, that’s just what Obama was able to get through - barely most of the time, because of Republican anti-democratic filibustering - when he started the health insurance debate, he had the Public Option on the table for christs sake. That’s in polar opposition to what 99% of Republicans would have put forward. Or his beating up of the banking industry - do you really see W doing ANY of that? No way in hell.

It’s simply not true to say they’re the same economically. To say they’re controlled by business interests, yes, but don’t abandon the party or get disillusioned with Democrats just because of that, you’re feeding into the Republican and Libertarian propaganda trap.[/quote]

TT, you’re outing yourself as just an Obamaphile. Chris is right that personally Obama is different than Bush, but if you really think his policies are different you’re fooling yourself. Guantanamo is still open, gays are still barred from the military, the health care plan he ended up supporting and signing is nothing but a giveaway to corporate health care companies, and his current “financial reform” bill is pathetic.

Now, I personally disagree with what he says he wanted with financial reform, and health care reform, but I would have greatly preferred real reform as opposed to the corporate giveaways he has instead passed into law. If he had stood his ground and demanded a public option, that would be SO much better than what he instead gave to the health insurance companies. I don’t want federal intervention in any market, period. But I would much prefer a public option to the ridiculous bill that was passed. And if you think what he has presided over can legitimately be called reform, you’ve been drinking way too much kool aid man.

And of course my original statement stands that you expat leftists can hate on the good Dr. all you want, but you can never call him a hypocrite or a sellout.

[quote=“Byshguy”]Chris is right that personally Obama is different than Bush, but if you really think his policies are different you’re fooling yourself. Guantanamo is still open, gays are still barred from the military, the health care plan he ended up supporting and signing is nothing but a giveaway to corporate health care companies, and his current “financial reform” bill is pathetic.

Now, I personally disagree with what he says he wanted with financial reform, and health care reform, but I would have greatly preferred real reform as opposed to the corporate giveaways he has instead passed into law. If he had stood his ground and demanded a public option, that would be SO much better than what he instead gave to the health insurance companies. I don’t want federal intervention in any market, period. But I would much prefer a public option to the ridiculous bill that was passed. And if you think what he has presided over can legitimately be called reform, you’ve been drinking way too much kool aid man.

And of course my original statement stands that you expat leftists can hate on the good Dr. all you want, but you can never call him a hypocrite or a sellout.[/quote]
Compromise.

The President doesn’t govern by himself. There are 400+ other lawmakers with whom he has to negotiate. You gotta hand it to the Republicans who negotiate to water-down legislation then vote against it. Pure genius. Obama may also have his position on military issues, but I respect a person who can listen to the people who are on the front and try to find mutually acceptable, workable solutions.

I, too, am very disappointed by the failure to include a public option in health care reform, but the legislation that passed, while admittedly will be a financial BOOM to the insurance industry at least in the short term, did address many problems in the system and is a step in the right direction. It’s only a matter of time, though, before people realize that quality, affordable health care should be available to every citizen, that insurance companies provide no value added to the health care delivery system and will agree that a single payer system for basic coverage is the best option.

I respect your desire for no federal intervention in any market, but I strongly disagree. It’s exactly that laissez faire attitude that has allowed the financial system to implode. A free market does not necessarily prevent abuse or unsafe practices/products/services. Government’s failure to oversee oil drilling safety contributed greatly to the mess in the Gulf. The government’s job is to protect citizens, and oversight/regulation/intervention is a crucial part.

And I hope Paul continues to stand behind his beliefs and do it loudly. It will assure he doesn’t get elected.

What nonsense. Blitzkrieg is a very commonly used word. It barely has Nazi connotations. What desperation to try to make what needs no defense into the indefensible.[/quote]
+1: what you smokin, Chewy, you can do better than that. And you’re calling Gore dumb? Seriously? The man’s extremely intelligent whether you like his policies or not, and the only reason he lost to W was because his public speaking skills weren’t good, don’t you remember the debates and the public appearances leading up to 2000? Come on, man, that’s just slandering the guy. I mean jesus tapdancing christ man, if Gore is dumb, what does that make W???

:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: That’s why I support Ron Paul. All you expat lefties can hate on him all you want, but you can never call him a phony or a hypocrite.[/quote]
Yeah, but you can call him a schwanz.

But all rhetoric aside, do you seriously see “Dems and Pubs are essentially the same economically”? I agree they’re both heavily swayed by big corporations, but there are still HUGE differences in what they would do if they had the power to do so - their platforms. Just look at the Obama in the first 2 years, the efforts he’s pushed - right or wrong, successful or failures - are almost totally different from what W and the Republicans did or would have done. And remember, that’s just what Obama was able to get through - barely most of the time, because of Republican anti-democratic filibustering - when he started the health insurance debate, he had the Public Option on the table for christs sake. That’s in polar opposition to what 99% of Republicans would have put forward. Or his beating up of the banking industry - do you really see W doing ANY of that? No way in hell.

It’s simply not true to say they’re the same economically. To say they’re controlled by business interests, yes, but don’t abandon the party or get disillusioned with Democrats just because of that, you’re feeding into the Republican and Libertarian propaganda trap.[/quote]

TT, you’re outing yourself as just an Obamaphile. Chris is right that personally Obama is different than Bush, but if you really think his policies are different you’re fooling yourself. Guantanamo is still open, gays are still barred from the military, the health care plan he ended up supporting and signing is nothing but a giveaway to corporate health care companies, and his current “financial reform” bill is pathetic.[/quote]
How the hell does drawing clear economic policy distinctions between corporatist Republicans and corporatist Democrats make me an “Obamaphile”? That’s playground namecalling. Chris and I were talking about economic policy distinctions, WTF does Guantanamo and gays in the military have anything to do with it??? That’s social policy, and a different argument. I made it clear I’m disappointed with the health care bill and financial reforms, my point, which was pretty frickin explicitly stated, is that W and the Republicans did do and would have done MUCH LESS - increasing tax cuts, reducing taxes on businesses, and so forth - TOTALLY different from what Obama has done.

Stating that the policies that Obama and the democrats have squeezed through the Republican filibusters (or threat thereof) are far different from Republican policies is not being an Obamaphile, it’s common sense, I’m not even defending the policies themselves!

That’s a seriously anti-intellectual argument. The term “sell-out” means you believed in something first but then changed with the political weather. The term “hypocrite” means you say and push one thing but do another. If Ron Paul would admit that he’s exaggerating or outright wrong on his “free market healthcare” ideas, for example, he wouldn’t be a sell-out, because he didn’t change his position for political reasons, and he wouldn’t be a hypocrite because he is improving his position from being wrong. The terms you’re using - sell-out and hypocrite - are essentially creating a straw-man out of the attacks on Paul’s ideas, and making it seem like he’s a victim of left-wing attacks. In fact, “sticking to your guns” when he’s so plainly wrong just makes him an idiot in the mold of W and his menagerie of idiots and twats, and when you’re an idiot with power, that’s pretty much evil.

[quote=“TwoTongues”]How the hell does drawing clear economic policy distinctions between corporatist Republicans and corporatist Democrats make me an “Obamaphile”? That’s playground namecalling. Chris and I were talking about economic policy distinctions, WTF does Guantanamo and gays in the military have anything to do with it??? That’s social policy, and a different argument. I made it clear I’m disappointed with the health care bill and financial reforms, my point, which was pretty frickin explicitly stated, is that W and the Republicans did do and would have done MUCH LESS - increasing tax cuts, reducing taxes on businesses, and so forth - TOTALLY different from what Obama has done.

Stating that the policies that Obama and the democrats have squeezed through the Republican filibusters (or threat thereof) are far different from Republican policies is not being an Obamaphile, it’s common sense, I’m not even defending the policies themselves![/quote]

Ok, fair enough, the social issues are unrelated, however that is the thread topic. But if you really think about it, and really look at Bush’s record on health care, I think the record shows that both him and Obama advocated for an expanded Federal role in health care. And they both did it by selling out to corporate America. George Bush did it by expanding medicare coverage for prescription drugs, without any way to control the prices charged by the drug companies. Obama did it by requiring every citizen to buy health insurance, without any way to control the cost of those health insurance policies.

Why is it anti-intellectual to say that the man stands on his principles. Read above for what Craig said. That’s how you make a civil argument, without resorting to calling people idiots. And you accuse me of playground behavior? :no-no:

[quote=“Okami”]
Twotongues:
Basically most Right wingers could care less about gays outside of gay marriage and that’s only because of what would come after gay marriage.[/quote]

Giving birth to a baby gay?

Why is it anti-intellectual to say that the man stands on his principles. Read above for what Craig said. That’s how you make a civil argument, without resorting to calling people idiots. And you accuse me of playground behavior? :no-no:[/quote]
It’s anti-intellectual to say that it’s a positive to stand by your principles when your principles are so blatantly wrong and when you know you’re wrong. Paul calls global warming and climate change a “hoax” and he says free-market health care is good, those are pro-business pro-laissez faire capitalism political positions and not serious realistic or scientific positions to hold. So he’s either pushing these red herrings for political gain, making him a hypocrite, or he doesn’t realize how unsound they are, making him foolish, or he realizes but he is “sticking to his guns”, which I think is what you’re saying, and that’s an anti-intellectual position to hold - knowing you’re wrong but sticking to it out of “principle” is anti-intellectual, and that’s what I’m saying. Hardly playground namecalling.