2016 Election

Quote: TomG

It is not about "people loving each other" as you say. It is about what the Supreme Court ruled. The liberal justices do what they want, regardless of what the law says and they won't allow it. Do you really think Scalia and Thomas will be the ones who force the government to accept polygamy?

It will have to go thru lower and state courts first. In reality the Feds had no standing to even rule if you believe in the 10th Amendment. Polygamy will happen faster than gay marriage, which in reality took about 20 years. SCOTUS has ruled that states cannot define marriage. A clever attorney will make it happen. I can't wait, it will be a fantastic day!

Quote: AZDuffman

It will have to go thru lower and state courts first. In reality the Feds had no standing to even rule if you believe in the 10th Amendment. Polygamy will happen faster than gay marriage, which in reality took about 20 years. SCOTUS has ruled that states cannot define marriage. A clever attorney will make it happen. I can't wait, it will be a fantastic day!

First you say that the Supreme Court didn't follow what the law says for gay marriage. Then you say the courts must accept polygamy because that's what the law says.

The courts -- most notably the Supreme Court -- just do whatever they want. And right now none of them want polygamy.

Quote: AZDuffman

This has nothing to do with things. Different races can still biologically reproduce and even if they cannot or chose not to male/female is still physically, biologically, and spiritually/mentally a different relationship than a same-sex one.

In what way? What laws were written such that there is a substantive difference between an opposite sex or a same sex partner? I listed multiple related to having 2 people in the relationship whereas you have listed zero that require having a male and a female?

Quote: TomG

The courts -- most notably the Supreme Court -- just do whatever they want. And right now none of them want polygamy.

Curious to see the position that the courts no longer even bother to test laws and policies against the Constitution but rather rely on their own inherent prejudices. Wow!

As for "none of them want polygamy," that has not been tested yet. So it is really indeterminate. At least until Ginsburg and Kagan officiate at a polyamorous ceremony.

Quote: TomG

First you say that the Supreme Court didn't follow what the law says for gay marriage. Then you say the courts must accept polygamy because that's what the law says.

The courts -- most notably the Supreme Court -- just do whatever they want. And right now none of them want polygamy.

We do not know that they want polygamy or not. Nobody has asked. But once you say the states have no right to define marriage, they have no right to define marriage. They found this right in the 14th Amendment, underneath that dusty tape of the 1960 World Series. It was locked away so nobody knew the right existed!

Polygamy is coming. Some people will want more than one spouse. Some people will marry someone to secure more federal handouts. Smart gangsters will all marry each other so they can claim "spousal privilege." Then they can go home to their wives! All wide open in the USA!

Quote: SanchoPanza

Curious to see the position that the courts no longer even bother to test laws and policies against the Constitution but rather rely on their own inherent prejudices. Wow!

As for "none of them want polygamy," that has not been tested yet. So it is really indeterminate. At least until Ginsburg and Kagan officiate at a polyamorous ceremony.

What makes Republicans think the ruling was inherently unconstitutional. Again precedent dictated this had to be done. Loving V Virginia already established that the federal government could put limits on the laws states made in regard to marriage. If you overturn the most recent gay marriage ruling you'd have to overturn that ruling as well.

Quote: SanchoPanza

As for "none of them want polygamy," that has not been tested yet. So it is really indeterminate.

I wonder what the odds would be in a gambling market. I'll take any action on someone who wants to bet on the Supreme Court legalizing polygamy

Quote: Twirdman

In what way? What laws were written such that there is a substantive difference between an opposite sex or a same sex partner? I listed multiple related to having 2 people in the relationship whereas you have listed zero that require having a male and a female?

I already said it. Physically, biologically, and spiritually/mentally. It is not a natural relationship. I am really not going to go thru this for the 38th time. If you cannot see even the physical differences then you are homophile-indoctrinated as are most people in the USA born since the late-1980s and I cannot undo that. When you can show me how a homosexual couple can have natural sexual relations with each other please let me know. Nothing graphic and X-rated. By "natural" I of course mean that assuming both members are healthy then reproduction can happen. I don't want to hear about any kind of deviate acts that "men and women also do." I don't want to hear about infertile couples and birth control. When you can explain how two gays of the same sex can go to a bedroom and one get pregnant, let me know then I will say it is physically the same. Until then the burden is on your side.

For crying out loud, you got the law you wanted. Time to move on. You are never, ever going to get acceptance from myself and millions of others for such a lifestyle choice. I choose to live single, I do not care who knows it or how much the law penalizes me for it. All I ask is that gays adopt the same attitude.

Quote: AZDuffman

By "natural" I of course mean that assuming both members are healthy then reproduction can happen. I don't want to hear about any kind of deviate acts that "men and women also do." I don't want to hear about infertile couples and birth control. When you can explain how two gays of the same sex can go to a bedroom and one get pregnant, let me know then I will say it is physically the same. Until then the burden is on your side.

Marriage isn't about reproduction in the US and hasn't been for a long time. Not only are there no laws dictating that reproduction has to be a possibility of a marriage there are laws dictating that marriage can only take place if there is no possibility of reproduction, certain incest marriage laws. Given that and the ruling in Lawrence V. Texas saying states could not regulate sexual relations what legal justification is there for banning gay marriage or as you want to frame it keeping marriage between a man and a woman.

Out of curiosity, is support for government recognized polygamy a mostly conservative or mostly liberal position?

Also, are most people who support legalizing polygamy also among gay marriage supporters or gay marriage opponents?

I would have thought anyone who supported polygamy also supported gay marriage, but it seems to almost be the exact opposite. Is that just faulty perception or is there something I'm missing about why this is happening?

Quote: TomG

Out of curiosity, is support for government recognized polygamy a mostly conservative or mostly liberal position?

Also, are most people who support legalizing polygamy also among gay marriage supporters or gay marriage opponents?

I would have thought anyone who supported polygamy also supported gay marriage, but it seems to almost be the exact opposite. Is that just faulty perception or is there something I'm missing about why this is happening?

For me it is that if marriage has no definition then fair is fair. Anyone can see I think this redefinition is a bad idea. So as long as we have collapse coming, let it happen sooner rather than later. Myself and many conservatives are in effect saying, "you wanted it redefined, you got it! Enjoy!"

Are you people still bickering about this. You lost. Get over it! Get on with life. :)

Quote: TomG

Out of curiosity, is support for government recognized polygamy a mostly conservative or mostly liberal position?

I haven't changed my position since I wrote this. Back in 2013 on same thread.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/15693-2016-election/50/#post299713

Quote:

I think terapined should reconsider. You have trailer trash getting married, serial murderers, the Kardashiians, welfare moms who may never hold a job, the Kardashians, (did I mention them). They all have questionable effects on the sanctity of marriage and possibly even harm to society.

As long as it's consenting ADULTS. Kids still can't consent as adults, and I think someone needs to prove animals can reason well enough to understand marriage before you can claim consent for them, so those two are still out. But the polygamists, I'm not sure why not as long as they don't marry children. They probably bring no more collective harm than many other people unfit to do much but breathe.

Quote: AZDuffman

For me it is that if marriage has no definition then fair is fair. Anyone can see I think this redefinition is a bad idea. So as long as we have collapse coming, let it happen sooner rather than later. Myself and many conservatives are in effect saying, "you wanted it redefined, you got it! Enjoy!"

Under any definition, giving rights to some people such as same-sex couples or polygamists, but not single people, is not fair. Nor is it a collapse of anything. It is an entrenchment of government discrimination.

Quote: kewlj

Are you people still bickering about this. You lost. Get over it! Get on with life. :)

Ya know any of you 'righties' who are still obsessing over this gay marriage thing, really should wake up and move on. As 'righties' you have much bigger issues you should be concerned about, like how one guy who can't and won't win either the nomination or presidency is single handedly sinking your parties chances for the presidency. Not only is the situation becoming a disaster for this cycle, but it may take a REAL long time for 'ya'll' to recover from this clown.

I personally think he is a plant for the democrats, not sure if he is working on his own or who's idea this is/was. But I do know the Repubs have been caught totally of guard. In the beginning they just thought it would be an issue and story for a few days and then he would fade away as always, so they just tried to ignore him. Now they are not sure how to stop him from making a real mess of things.

Quote: AZDuffman

For me it is that if marriage has no definition then fair is fair. Anyone can see I think this redefinition is a bad idea. So as long as we have collapse coming, let it happen sooner rather than later. Myself and many conservatives are in effect saying, "you wanted it redefined, you got it! Enjoy!"

We've redefined plenty of institutions and I hardly thing the world has devolved into bedlam like the conservatives keep claiming this redefinition will. Marriage has repeatedly been redefined throughout history with countries all over the world having many assorted customs including gay marriage and polygamy. Can we stop claiming that marriage was this institution handed down from on high that has never changed and was forever meant to be as it is today. I mean Robert's had this in his freaking dissent

"As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

Anyone who knows anything about almost any of those cultures would find that statement laughable. Do you really think the marriage customs of the Han Chinese with their complex structure of concubine, their occasional same sex marriage, and the occurrence of ghost brides is even remotely related to modern day American marriage. The Bushmens marriage custom was also incredibly complex and nothing like modern American customs. The fact is not only are the people fighting for "traditional" marriage normally bigoted they have no historical perspective. I mean priest were not necessary for marriages until the Council of Trent in 1563, before then most marriage was simply by mutual agreement of the two marrying parties, then by the 17th century most protestant European countries had the state perform the duty of marriage.

Given history of cultures around the world performing homosexual marriage, polygamy, arranged marriage, marriage of young children, complex concubine systems, and more rare practices like ghost brides what "tradition" are you actually protecting? Heck even if you just go with Abrahamic marriage you would still have polygamy, Levirate marriage, concubines, and marriage of young children. Also if we stick to Jesus divorce should be totally illegal.

Clearly marriage has been redefined plenty of times in the past; this newest redefinition is not going to be its death knell.

Quote: TomG

Under any definition, giving rights to some people such as same-sex couples or polygamists, but not single people, is not fair. Nor is it a collapse of anything. It is an entrenchment of government discrimination.

What rights do singles not have that married people do? Single people don't even pay the marriage penalty on their incomes.

Quote: TomG

Out of curiosity, is support for government recognized polygamy a mostly conservative or mostly liberal position??

Depends on how you categorize Mormons.

Quote: Twirdman

What makes Republicans think the ruling was inherently unconstitutional.

Presuming that was a question in search of punctuation and not a purely rhetorical one, the answer would be moot if the necessary provision was found in the Constitution.

Quote: Twirdman

What makes Republicans think the ruling was inherently unconstitutional.

Presuming that was a question in search of punctuation and not a purely rhetorical one, the answer would be moot if the necessary provision was found in the Constitution.

Quote: TomG

Under any definition, giving rights to some people

Excuse my pedant.

The government doesn't "give" us rights. We have rights that are inalienable. Sometimes they put ink to parchment and acknowledge some law or decision which they deem themselves within their powers to dish out as they see fit. Meanwhile the slaves are all in a dither about what their owners will or won't allow.

Technically we own the government, lol.

It is not like they have a sack or box full of rights that they will give us one at a time. Americans have always had rights, but for some reasons decide to give their sovereignty over to a bunch of parasitical bureaucrats? Beats me, I guess it's easier then taking personal responsibility.

This was not a personal attack, just sayin it's a pet peeve of mine, when the .gov supposedly gives me something. They only take it from somewhere else, charge a vig and distribute the rest how they choose, which usually supports their positions.

Quote: TomG

I would have thought anyone who supported polygamy also supported gay marriage, but it seems to almost be the exact opposite. Is that just faulty perception or is there something I'm missing about why this is happening?

Most people who actually support polygamy - bar a few religious nuts - are pro-gay-marriage, but a it's become a right-wing talking point to use polygamy as a "poison pill."

Quote: SanchoPanza

Presuming that was a question in search of punctuation and not a purely rhetorical one, the answer would be moot if the necessary provision was found in the Constitution.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this? Proper interpretation of the 14th amendment is proper provision. It clearly lays out that the states are not allowed to have discriminatory laws in place, Loving V Virginia showed that applied to marriages the only question then became are these laws discriminatory and the obvious answer was yes. It is the job of the court to interpret the constitution. I mean are you arguing that everything not specifically laid out in the constitution is not a right? If not then the courts didn't do anything unconstitutional. If so that leads into a very odd path.

Quote: Twirdman

I don't know exactly what you mean by this? Proper interpretation of the 14th amendment is proper provision. It clearly lays out that the states are not allowed to have discriminatory laws in place, Loving V Virginia showed that applied to marriages the only question then became are these laws discriminatory and the obvious answer was yes. It is the job of the court to interpret the constitution. I mean are you arguing that everything not specifically laid out in the constitution is not a right? If not then the courts didn't do anything unconstitutional. If so that leads into a very odd path.

The Loving decision is one that dealt with the legally described crime of interracial marriage. No criminality was involved with Obergefell.

There is an interesting difference to the polygamy question, differing from other examples of marriage.

It's a question of volume. Because it's the volume, not thing being done prohibited.

It's like being over the limit laws. That is different than prohibition of something. There's plenty of examples of things limited by amount by law for various reasons.

Not sure this is useful distinction as far as rights, just think it is interesting.

I suppose the law could say, we allowed you the thing but are controlling the amount and call it non-discrimination?

Like 5 grams of marijuana is legal, but more is illegal. Or something? We didn't say you couldn't have it, just how much?

I think some of you guys are looking at this ruling incorrectly. You are thinking and saying that 5 unelected judged changed what marriage is. I don't think that is right. The public through public opinion decided this change. A judge can rule either way and justify it by an interpretation of the constitution. There is a lot of latitude there.

If public opinion has not drastically changed on this issue as dramatically as it did in such a short time, I don't believe you would have seen this change, even with these same 9 judges. Changing public opinion was the force behind this decision. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate something similar will occur with polygamy.

Quote: kewlj

Changing public opinion was the force behind this decision. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate something similar will occur with polygamy.

The rationale for both is the same. Why should one class of people be covered by the "right" while others are not?

Quote: kewlj

Ya know any of you 'righties' who are still obsessing over this gay marriage thing, really should wake up and move on. As 'righties' you have much bigger issues you should be concerned about, like how one guy who can't and won't win either the nomination or presidency is single handedly sinking your parties chances for the presidency. Not only is the situation becoming a disaster for this cycle, but it may take a REAL long time for 'ya'll' to recover from this clown.

I personally think he is a plant for the democrats, not sure if he is working on his own or who's idea this is/was. But I do know the Repubs have been caught totally of guard. In the beginning they just thought it would be an issue and story for a few days and then he would fade away as always, so they just tried to ignore him. Now they are not sure how to stop him from making a real mess of things.

You sound like that Maddow dude on MSNBC and her famous 1 hour story in 2009 on why the GOP will never win the House or Senate again because of the changing demographics in America and that the GOP is quickly becoming a minor party. Funny how they don't replay or discuss that one anymore.

Liberal advise on how Trump is "ruining" the GOP chances is worthless, but keep dreaming. After all, your side never wants to discuss issues if someone's feelings are going to get hurt by realities. Unless of course the feelings being hurt are people getting more taxes pulled out of their pockets for more liberal spending.

And I will admit, I never will be able to understand someone like you who it appears works hard for everything you have can be a liberal. Does the "Gay" thing override all others, and if so, that I might be able to understand because the GOP has missed the boat on that one. The other reason I see with successful liberals is the superiority complex thing where they feel most others are NOT capable of making the sacrifices in life needed to have things like they did. Note from a distance I don't see you as that type liberal at all.

Again, its just easy for me to simplify it to hard work and personal choices in life versus people wanting handouts and feeling like victims. And while there are more complicated issues than that out there, it does come down to that with many people on both sides.

Quote: Twirdman

We've redefined plenty of institutions and I hardly thing the world has devolved into bedlam like the conservatives keep claiming this redefinition will.

That is because you expect "bedlam" like some movie with the streets gong crazy. What really happens is disaster becomes "normal" and you accept it around you as such. Lets look at an example.

25 years ago, Dan Qyayle mentioned how "Murphy Brown" was a bad example and gave young girls the idea that it is a fine idea to have a kid out of wedlock and be a single mom. He got attacked by the radical feminists and lamesteram media. HOW DARE HE! was the cry. "Family Values" was made to be a bad thing.

Fast forward to now. The illegitimacy rate has gone way up. It has flat-out collapsed the black community. Whites will be next. Out of wedlock birth is the surest ticket to a live in poverty that there is. Remove it and black poverty and crime rates drop to normal with whites. Some schools have almost all kids getting subsidized lunches. Once a source of shame, single parenthood is now so common it is or will be the majority of schoolkids.

The "bedlam" has become normal and accepted. Many people cannot even handle the truth about the relationship to crime and poverty. But look without blinders and it is clear as day.

Quote: AZDuffman

That is because you expect "bedlam" like some movie with the streets gong crazy. What really happens is disaster becomes "normal" and you accept it around you as such. Lets look at an example.

25 years ago, Dan Qyayle mentioned how "Murphy Brown" was a bad example and gave young girls the idea that it is a fine idea to have a kid out of wedlock and be a single mom. He got attacked by the radical feminists and lamesteram media. HOW DARE HE! was the cry. "Family Values" was made to be a bad thing.

Fast forward to now. The illegitimacy rate has gone way up. It has flat-out collapsed the black community. Whites will be next. Out of wedlock birth is the surest ticket to a live in poverty that there is. Remove it and black poverty and crime rates drop to normal with whites. Some schools have almost all kids getting subsidized lunches. Once a source of shame, single parenthood is now so common it is or will be the majority of schoolkids.

The "bedlam" has become normal and accepted. Many people cannot even handle the truth about the relationship to crime and poverty. But look without blinders and it is clear as day.

The issue is that Liberals have no idea how to address the issue besides dumping more government money into failing programs. Conservatives don't find a compassionate voice to address the problem, so no one listens.

The losers? All of us to some extent, but the biggest losers are the ones we are supposedly trying to help.

Anyone want to answer why both Trump and Sanders are polling close to the same number in their parties, yet if you are for one you are a "racist" and the other you are "for the people"? I assume by people they mean lazy Occupy types who some believe will actually show up and vote. Or do they just hate their chosen candidate that bad that they are for someone who believes in 90% tax rates. Though again, you actually have to work and earn money to be taxed, so nevermind.

Quote: Boz

Anyone want to answer why both Trump and Sanders are polling close to the same number in their parties, yet if you are for one you are a "racist" and the other you are "for the people"? I assume by people they mean lazy Occupy types who some believe will actually show up and vote. Or do they just hate their chosen candidate that bad that they are for someone who believes in 90% tax rates. Though again, you actually have to work and earn money to be taxed, so nevermind.

It has often perplexed me why government officials treat the rich with such hostility and disdain. The top 1% of income earners are responsible for somewhere around 40% of the tax revenue in America despite making only 16% of the overall income. In other words they are their top customers. In most other businesses, they treat their best customers with reverence and care. A Vegas resort will fly in a whale from halfway around the planet on a private jet, give them the nicest suite or villa on the house and give him all his food and beverage for free, because he spends so much money in the casino. What do the government's best revenue generators get for all they contribute? They get told they don't pay enough or even their fair share, when by most estimates they pay about 2.5 times their fair share. These are also the people who are creating businesses which hire people, which causes them to pay more taxes into the system.

Quote: Gabes22

It has often perplexed me why government officials treat the rich with such hostility and disdain. The top 1% of income earners are responsible for somewhere around 40% of the tax revenue in America despite making only 16% of the overall income. In other words they are their top customers. In most other businesses, they treat their best customers with reverence and care. A Vegas resort will fly in a whale from halfway around the planet on a private jet, give them the nicest suite or villa on the house and give him all his food and beverage for free, because he spends so much money in the casino. What do the government's best revenue generators get for all they contribute? They get told they don't pay enough or even their fair share, when by most estimates they pay about 2.5 times their fair share. These are also the people who are creating businesses which hire people, which causes them to pay more taxes into the system.

Somehow wealth is evil; more evil than just "wealth" is wealth in the hands of a Conservative. I don't get it either. I don't bemoan the fact that Soros and the Koch brothers are rich...but why is it that it seems that the Koch brothers are evil and Soros is a saint?

Are their evil wealthy people? Sure. There are evil poor people, too. One is open to attack and attempts to rob them of their earned money; another is treated as if all of their problems are society's fault. In reality, there will always be a group of people we can and should take care of, but there is another group that has decided it is easier to live off of the wage earners rather than earning a wage.

Quote: Boz

Anyone want to answer why both Trump and Sanders are polling close to the same number in their parties, yet if you are for one you are a "racist" and the other you are "for the people"? .

I admit I lean left.
If you are a Trump supporter Boz, you are absolutely NOT a racist. Where does this come from? If you search hard on the internet, yea you may find some extreme left wing wack job spouting BS. The reality is, normal average people such as me that lean left, don't think of any conservatives as racist simply because they are a conservative.
Anybody that supports Trump, that's their right. Maybe they feel its better to have a businessman as President then a life long politician. I get that. I don't view any Trump supporter as a racist.

Don't listen to the tiny few trolling left wing wack jobs and I wont think the westboro Baptist church represents Christian Conservatives.

Quote: RonC

Are their evil wealthy people? Sure. There are evil poor people, too. One is open to attack and attempts to rob them of their earned money; another is treated as if all of their problems are society's fault.

Pretty sure, just for example if we tallied up comments about the evils of the wealthy and the poor or underclass on this site, you would clearly see the wealthy aren't the only ones getting hit hard with demonization.

Shoot, if I add up all the times one of you has said some unknown non-descript person is not pulling their fair share, or some such thing just as generalization, it wouldn't be any prettier.

So lets not cry a single tear for demonization of the wealthy, like it's a one-sided affair.

It's not.

It never has been.

It won't be in the future.

Quote: rxwine

Pretty sure, just for example if we tallied up comments about the evils of the wealthy and the poor or underclass on this site, you would clearly see the wealthy aren't the only ones getting hit hard with demonization.

Are there comments here regarding "comments about the evils of the wealthy " ?
I can see somebody here posting a negative comment regarding somebody like Bernie Madoff.
Are there actually comments here regarding the evils of being wealthy?
This is a Vegas/gambling board , a lot of wealthy people here with a lot of money to waste gambling and blowing on trips to Vegas.
I check out a lot of threads here and I have never ever seen comments regarding wealth being evil.
I lean left, take trips to Vegas, gamble, so I have moderate wealth, I certainly don't think my wealth is evil. Yea I could donate it to charity and be a better person but I work hard, would rather have fun just like everybody else on this board with wealth.
Now I don't read every thread but I have to imagine a comment regarding the evils of wealth on a gambling vegas board gotta be rare.

Quote: terapined

I admit I lean left.
If you are a Trump supporter Boz, you are absolutely NOT a racist. Where does this come from? If you search hard on the internet, yea you may find some extreme left wing wack job spouting BS. The reality is, normal average people such as me that lean left, don't think of any conservatives as racist simply because they are a conservative.
Anybody that supports Trump, that's their right. Maybe they feel its better to have a businessman as President then a life long politician. I get that. I don't view any Trump supporter as a racist.

Don't listen to the tiny few trolling left wing wack jobs and I wont think the westboro Baptist church represents Christian Conservatives.

Great post!!!! Thank you!

Quote: terapined

Are there comments here regarding "comments about the evils of the wealthy " ?
I can see somebody here posting a negative comment regarding somebody like Bernie Madoff.
Are there actually comments here regarding the evils of being wealthy?
This is a Vegas/gambling board , a lot of wealthy people here with a lot of money to waste gambling and blowing on trips to Vegas.
I check out a lot of threads here and I have never ever seen comments regarding wealth being evil.
I lean left, take trips to Vegas, gamble, so I have moderate wealth, I certainly don't think my wealth is evil. Yea I could donate it to charity and be a better person but I work hard, would rather have fun just like everybody else on this board with wealth.
Now I don't read every thread but I have to imagine a comment regarding the evils of wealth on a gambling vegas board gotta be rare.

It was in response to a comment I made about Bernie Sanders proposing 90% tax rates on the rich. I was comparing the rich to the government's best customers and finding it perplexing how the government and politicians treat them with disdain, especially with what you see private businesses doing to cater to their best customers.

Quote: Gabes22

It was in response to a comment I made about Bernie Sanders proposing 90% tax rates on the rich. I was comparing the rich to the government's best customers and finding it perplexing how the government and politicians treat them with disdain, especially with what you see private businesses doing to cater to their best customers.

The thing is, you still need a means test. A doctor who made 20 million just got convicted of treating hundreds of people, some who didn't even have cancer. Maybe his paying 2.5 percent more makes up for that. Doubt it though.

You can make yourself wealthy at a cost to society in other ways, that are legal.

Wealth doesn't make you a net benefit to society. You can certainly misuse resources, lead people to folly, leave the world more polluted and worse off than when you came in. You're more powerful and can independently wield more damage if you happen to be amoral, and don't care how you obtain your wealth or what cost to anyone or anything as you acquire it.

Quote: Boz

And I will admit, I never will be able to understand someone like you who it appears works hard for everything you have can be a liberal. Does the "Gay" thing override all others, and if so, that I might be able to understand because the GOP has missed the boat on that one.

First, why do you have to say something like "that Maddow dude"??? Why do you have to be that small, immature and petty. The second I read something like that, I think "well that is not a very mature person that I want to attempt to engage in any kind of meaningful dialog with".

But, let me try to explain it to you sir, as far as my own situation. In recent years, as I have made a little bit of money and have a little bit of money and property that I want to protect. I have found my views changing as far as fiscal issues and government involvement of my finances. I am now more in favor of smaller government, which is more in line with republicans in this regard. But this is one issue and while an important one for me, there are other issues.

As a gay man, social issues and gay marriage in particular have dominated my politics for most of my adult life. Now that I have that right, married last fall and we have gotten that right for all my 'brothers and sisters' throughout the land, other things move up in priority. And frankly, some of these things I am aligned more with the right than the left at this point.

Problem is that even with this issue off the table, I don't feel the slightest bit welcome in the republican camp. There are still those screaming that they will do everything they can to take that right away from me. There are others like, former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum who makes statements saying he doesn't hate the sinner (me) he hates the sin. Well gee, that is a warm, inclusive feeling that makes me want to join the cause.

I don't expect you to understand, but for someone like me, being gay has been an issue that has dominated my life. There was some bullying issues in school, although probably nothing like older generations went through. There were family issues, including being kicked out of my home the day I turned 18, while still in high school. Being gay is an issue that impacts every aspect of your life (again, I don't expect you to understand that).

I suspect Latinos and blacks have similar stories. You know many of these people, as do many gays have conservative values that better align with the republican party. But there is absolutely no effort by the party to be inclusive and build on common values and interests. Quite the contrary. So these groups as a whole, including those with conservative values flock to the democratic party. That is something your party needs to think about.

In your particular case stating "the Gay thing", with 'gay' in quotes emphasizes your opinion and how little you care and can relate to me. It is not a warm fuzzy, inclusive feeling.

I'll tell you, if there were no party labels and affiliations and everyone just ran as individuals based on their own views (and maybe that's the way it should be), I would most likely be supporting Jeb Bush. Instead, when party affiliations and party views and platforms are added to the mix, I will likely vote for Hillary Clinton, a candidate that I don't really like in this cycle.

Quote: kewlj

I suspect Latinos and blacks have similar stories. You know many of these people, as do many gays have conservative values that better align with the republican party. But there is absolutely no effort by the party to be inclusive and build on common values and interests. Quite the contrary. So these groups as a whole, including those with conservative values flock to the democratic party. That is something your party needs to think about.

This is what I do not get. What is the GOP supposed to do, sent out engraved invitations?

Quote:

I'll tell you, if there were no party labels and affiliations and everyone just ran as individuals based on their own views (and maybe that's the way it should be), I would most likely be supporting Jeb Bush. Instead, when party affiliations and party views and platforms are added to the mix, I will likely vote for Hillary Clinton, a candidate that I don't really like in this cycle.

So what you are saying is you are going to vote Democrat forever and there is no use in the GOP sending you said engraved invitation. You are going to vote for the woman who was against your most important issue until the very last minute. Don't kid around, you will vote for the (D).

Quote: AZDuffman

This is what I do not get. What is the GOP supposed to do, sent out engraved invitations?

.

They could at least try to stop demonizing them. I mean look at all the dog whistles being used right now that have been used for decades now to show that the GOP is for the whites. The GOP could also stop supporting blatant racist like Donald Trump. I mean a guy who accuses an entire class of people of being rapist and drug dealers isn't exactly that inviting and he is hardly the only one who is doing it you have Steve "Cantaloupe Calves" King who constantly attacks Hispanics then there was Ron Paul who edited an incredibly racist newsletter in the 80s there is also his son Rand Paul having employed several major racist to his campaign and speaking against the Civil Rights act. It's not even like the Republicans have attempted to do anything but demonize minorities so don't pretend they've done everything but send out engraved invitations.

Quote: Twirdman

They could at least try to stop demonizing them. I mean look at all the dog whistles being used right now that have been used for decades now to show that the GOP is for the whites. The GOP could also stop supporting blatant racist like Donald Trump. I mean a guy who accuses an entire class of people of being rapist and drug dealers isn't exactly that inviting and he is hardly the only one who is doing it you have Steve "Cantaloupe Calves" King who constantly attacks Hispanics then there was Ron Paul who edited an incredibly racist newsletter in the 80s there is also his son Rand Paul having employed several major racist to his campaign and speaking against the Civil Rights act. It's not even like the Republicans have attempted to do anything but demonize minorities so don't pretend they've done everything but send out engraved invitations.

Dog whistles. rotflmao

So let me see, it is in your eyes "racist" to be against illegal immigration and in favor of securing the border? Racist to not want illegal aliens to have drivers licenses and get welfare benefits. Sorry, this is not "racist" it is common sense. Bottom line is illegal aliens do commit a good deal of crime and the media is afraid to give immigration status of an illegal alien for fear of liberals crying "racist."

The GOP is not the party who had a KKK leader in the US Senate into the 2000s.

The GOP is not the party saying minorities are too stupid to get an ID.

Speaking of the Civil Rights act, it was the Democrat Party that filibustered it.

There is no racism in the GOP. What there is in the GOP is a refusal to pander and offer special favors (i.e.: affirmative action.)

Quote: AZDuffman

Dog whistles. rotflmao

So let me see, it is in your eyes "racist" to be against illegal immigration and in favor of securing the border? Racist to not want illegal aliens to have drivers licenses and get welfare benefits. Sorry, this is not "racist" it is common sense. Bottom line is illegal aliens do commit a good deal of crime and the media is afraid to give immigration status of an illegal alien for fear of liberals crying "racist."

The GOP is not the party who had a KKK leader in the US Senate into the 2000s.

The GOP is not the party saying minorities are too stupid to get an ID.

Speaking of the Civil Rights act, it was the Democrat Party that filibustered it.

There is no racism in the GOP. What there is in the GOP is a refusal to pander and offer special favors (i.e.: affirmative action.)

Except as i showed before when this very topic came up Illegal immigrants are not committing a great deal of crimes other than their immigration crimes. They are in fact committing crimes in lower proportions than their non immigrant counterparts.

Also yes Byrd was a member of the KKK and was incredibly racist he at the very least though apologized for it and admitted he was wrong. Strom Thurmond was a member of the Republican party till the 2000s and to that point still defended segregation.

Also a Republican did take part in that filibuster and many of those democrat, like Strom Thurmond switched to Republicans due to the southern strategy. I mean are we going to completely ignore the fact that starting with Goldwater the GOP increasingly pandered to the racist in the south?

Quote: Twirdman

Except as i showed before when this very topic came up Illegal immigrants are not committing a great deal of crimes other than their immigration crimes. They are in fact committing crimes in lower proportions than their non immigrant counterparts.

Again, illegal status is a crime in itself. Just so I know, you are saying you are in favor of welfare for people here illegally? And drivers licenses?

Quote:

I mean are we going to completely ignore the fact that starting with Goldwater the GOP increasingly pandered to the racist in the south?

Pandering to racists? Examples, please.

Quote: AZDuffman

Don't kid around, you will vote for the (D).

Thank you for deciding that for me. With people like you speaking for and representing the Republican brand, you may just be correct.

Quote: kewlj

Thank you for deciding that for me. With people like you speaking for and representing the Republican brand, you may just be correct.

I am correct. What have you said or done that shows otherwise? I don't waste time thinking liberals will flip parties. With few exceptions, homophiles will always vote Democrat. Doesn't matter that Dems passed DADT and did not support gay marriage at high levels until at least 2013. It is how you will vote. Be honest.

I am honest. The Democrat Party shares none of my values of personal responsibility, personal freedom, equal opportunity instead of equal outcome, defense of our nation, smaller government, and state's rights. Therefore I will never vote for them. I will not be taken in by "New Democrats" because there is no such thing once elected. I will not vote for Jeb, but neither will I vote Democrat. You can call that whatever you want, but I am honest about it.

Quote: AZDuffman

Pandering to racists? Examples, please.

You are kidding right? Are you this historically illiterate? Nixon with the aid of Storm Thurmond concocted the southern strategy to appeal to white supremacist and segregationist by masking those things as states rights. George H.W. Bush's ad against Dukkakis featuring Willie Horton was designed to stir up racial fears. Most people recognize the notion of welfare queens as a dog whistle for black female welfare cheats. I mean yeah they don't come out and say the n word any more but lets be honest it is quite obvious they are trying to play on racial tensions to win elections.

Quote: Twirdman

You are kidding right? Are you this historically illiterate? Nixon with the aid of Storm Thurmond concocted the southern strategy to appeal to white supremacist and segregationist by masking those things as states rights. George H.W. Bush's ad against Dukkakis featuring Willie Horton was designed to stir up racial fears. Most people recognize the notion of welfare queens as a dog whistle for black female welfare cheats. I mean yeah they don't come out and say the n word any more but lets be honest it is quite obvious they are trying to play on racial tensions to win elections.

So some examples of something Nixon said was "states rights" but is really "racist." Seriously. Some examples.

The Willie Horton ad was NOT RACIST. It showed a person who committed a crime. Committed a hate crime actually. It was effective because it showed what really happened under the furlough program. Those who cried "RACIST" as usual did so because they could not defend the program and what happened.

The disaster that welfare has become to a whole subculture is well known. Blacks are anywhere from 2.5-3Xs as likely as whites to be on welfare. So again, where is the racism in pointing out facts? Of course the facts are inconvenient for Democrats who push such programs. All Reagan did was point out the poverty-industrial complex in America.

Quote: AZDuffman

Again, illegal status is a crime in itself.

He who has not sinned against the state once or twice in their lifetime may throw the first stone.

If you've never done anything wrong (caught or not) you can throw stones on this one.