So what party do you represent?

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais

You do realize there are racists and homophobes rampant in all political parties, right?

Hi there, Sabine,

I'm going to offer you the benefit of the doubt since I'm hoping that you didn't mean to imply that I was a dim bulb with your emoticon.

I'm open to hearing your intent on that. Thank you.

And, just so we are clear, I know there are all types in all parties, but the party I choose to follow doesn't make blatantly racist and homophobic remarks in their ad hominem attacks. Nor do they threaten an elected official with murder.

Of course, I'm sure you know that about the Tea Party, right?

By the way, I'm fond of the Longfellow quote "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small; Though with patience he stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all." as well.

Now then, about that dim bulb remark? I'm all ears.

[Mrs. Strutt]

I am a registered Democrat, although I never vote a straight party ticket. The backgrounds and platforms of the individual candidates themselves are what interest me, not their party affiliation.

Anyone wants to start the "Keep Your Fucking Politics Out Of My Uterus and My Bedroom" party, I'm in.

[Apocalipstic]

I am a registered Democrat, but I lean wayyy farther to the Left than main line Democrats.

No War. Period.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Arwen

.. the party I choose to follow doesn't make blatantly racist and homophobic remarks in their ad hominem attacks. Nor do they threaten an elected official with murder.

I don't have a dog in this race, but this statement is patently false, and easily disproved by googling 'george bush death threats' and 'racist comments by democrats' or similar.

Also, I fail to see how just because a party doesn't make 'blatantly racist/homophobic remarks' (although that isn't true, but if it were) would make it somehow superior.

I've often thought that the sole difference between the south and other parts of the country in terms of blatant remarks is that in the south, you know who doesn't like you up front. Elsewhere, you find out when you wake up with a knife in your back.

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself." -Sun Tzu

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by Bob

I don't have a dog in this race, but this statement is patently false, and easily disproved by googling 'george bush death threats' and 'racist comments by democrats' or similar.

Also, I fail to see how just because a party doesn't make 'blatantly racist/homophobic remarks' (although that isn't true, but if it were) would make it somehow superior.

I've often thought that the sole difference between the south and other parts of the country in terms of blatant remarks is that in the south, you know who doesn't like you up front. Elsewhere, you find out when you wake up with a knife in your back.

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself." -Sun Tzu

Thank you for your response, Bob. I appreciate the time you took to post your opinion.

Can you point out to me where I said my party was superior? I have reread what I wrote and I do not see that I said that at all. I see where you may have inferred it, but I did not say it.

Plus, are you assuming my party choice? I did not state that either so I am unsure of your meaning there as well.

In the future, it might behoove you to consider exactly what is written before you make statements like "patently false" which seems to imply that I'm lying intentionally.

Thanks.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Arwen

Thank you for your response, Bob. I appreciate the time you took to post your opinion.

Can you point out to me where I said my party was superior? I have reread what I wrote and I do not see that I said that at all. I see where you may have inferred it, but I did not say it.

Plus, are you assuming my party choice? I did not state that either so I am unsure of your meaning there as well.

In the future, it might behoove you to consider exactly what is written before you make statements like "patently false" which seems to imply that I'm lying intentionally.

Thanks.

Arwen, if you're going to make patronzing replies in an attempt to have an actual conversation, try it with someone else.

I simply pointed out that your statement, which I quoted verbatim, was demonstrably false. Nowhere did I claim you were a liar. Perhaps you INFERRED that? It would appear so. That being the case, perhaps you'd like to reconsider chastising others who make reasonable inferences such as 'my party is superior because it doesn't make homophobic or racist remarks'.

Nowhere did I make any statement, real or implied, about your party affiliation. Again, an incorrect inference on your part.

In the future, it might behoove you to consider exactly what is written before you make statements like "I see where you may have inferred it, but I did not say it." In addition, it might further behoove you to actually address what was written, rather than attempting a weak rhetorical diversion from the substance of the comments made.

Thanks.

[Andrew, Jr.]

I have always been a democrat. I am just like Apocalipstic in that I lean to far far far left. No war.

Andrew

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Arwen

Of course, I'm sure you know that about the Tea Party, right?

MAYBE it's a fan of TeaPartyTart?

[ButterflyKisses]

I'm registered as a Dem but don't always vote a straight pary line.
A lot of my friends, whatever their political affiliation, cannot give a clear answer as to why they are with this party or that party. They vote the way they do because that's the way their friends or families vote. It's comfortable and safe.

To me that is far more disturbing than a person who is a complete opposite from what I believe. No one should be a blind sheep.

[dreadgeek]

Here are some of the more interesting planks of the Texas GOP's 2010 platform, specifically those parts of it relating to queer people:

Family and Defense of Marriage – We support the definition of marriage as a God–ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married. We advocate the repeal of laws that place an unfair tax burden on families. We call upon Congress to completely remove the marriage penalty in the tax code, whereby a married couple receives a smaller standard deduction than their unmarried counterparts living together. The primary family unit consists of those related by blood, heterosexual marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property.

Family Values – We affirm that this section is a response to the attacks on traditional family values. These include well- funded, vigorous political and judicial attempts by powerful organizations and branches of the government to force acceptance, affirmation and normalization of homosexual behavior upon school children, parents, educational institutions, businesses, employees, government bodies and religious institutions and charities. These aggressive, intolerant efforts marginalize as bigots anyone who dissents.

Marriage and Divorce – We believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the integrity of this institution should be protected at all levels of government. We urge the Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws. We support Covenant Marriage.

Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.

Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

Child Support and Visitation – We support equity between responsible parents in child support, custody, and visitation rights and costs, as well as the strengthening of laws designed to protect children from abuse. No parent/grandparent should be denied court ordered visitation, because of jurisdictional disputes between states. We also believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be prohibited but if ordered by the court limited to supervised periods.

Adoption – We support reducing the time, bureaucratic interference and cost of adoption. The law should assure mothers of a choice in selecting a traditional home for their children at the time of terminating their rights for adoption. We oppose mandatory open adoption and adoption by homosexuals.

So, I am supposed to treat the Republican party (and modern American conservatism in its current Tea Party incarnation) as being friendly or at least non-hostile to my interests why? Say what you want about the Democratic party, but at least their platform doesn't include things like the above. Any illusion that the two parties are identical should be well and truly debunked by the text above. And if you're thinking, "hey Aj, they don't really *mean* it" I say "it is the height of folly to presume that those opposed to your existence don't actually mean it when they say they want to make society hostile to your presence".

Cheers
Aj

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Here are some of the more interesting planks of the Texas GOP's 2010 platform, specifically those parts of it relating to queer people:

Family and Defense of Marriage – We support the definition of marriage as a God–ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married. We advocate the repeal of laws that place an unfair tax burden on families. We call upon Congress to completely remove the marriage penalty in the tax code, whereby a married couple receives a smaller standard deduction than their unmarried counterparts living together. The primary family unit consists of those related by blood, heterosexual marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property.

Family Values – We affirm that this section is a response to the attacks on traditional family values. These include well- funded, vigorous political and judicial attempts by powerful organizations and branches of the government to force acceptance, affirmation and normalization of homosexual behavior upon school children, parents, educational institutions, businesses, employees, government bodies and religious institutions and charities. These aggressive, intolerant efforts marginalize as bigots anyone who dissents.

Marriage and Divorce – We believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the integrity of this institution should be protected at all levels of government. We urge the Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws. We support Covenant Marriage.

Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.

Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

Child Support and Visitation – We support equity between responsible parents in child support, custody, and visitation rights and costs, as well as the strengthening of laws designed to protect children from abuse. No parent/grandparent should be denied court ordered visitation, because of jurisdictional disputes between states. We also believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be prohibited but if ordered by the court limited to supervised periods.

Adoption – We support reducing the time, bureaucratic interference and cost of adoption. The law should assure mothers of a choice in selecting a traditional home for their children at the time of terminating their rights for adoption. We oppose mandatory open adoption and adoption by homosexuals.

So, I am supposed to treat the Republican party (and modern American conservatism in its current Tea Party incarnation) as being friendly or at least non-hostile to my interests why? Say what you want about the Democratic party, but at least their platform doesn't include things like the above. Any illusion that the two parties are identical should be well and truly debunked by the text above. And if you're thinking, "hey Aj, they don't really *mean* it" I say "it is the height of folly to presume that those opposed to your existence don't actually mean it when they say they want to make society hostile to your presence".
Cheers
Aj

Well said!

My moral compass always takes precedence over fiscal responsibility. And who are we kidding? The last 8 years proved that fiscal responsibility, just like WMD, was just another illusion.

Like I said in another thread where this was posted, each party has a platform and an ideology. It is our responsibility as voters to read it and then decide what is really important to us, and how can we reconcile how we live and who we are with said platform.

To me, the party whose platform most aligns with my moral compass is the Democratic party. No party is perfect, but I refuse to align with a party that blatantly states and believes the above.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

Well said!

My moral compass always takes precedence over fiscal responsibility. And who are we kidding? The last 8 years proved that fiscal responsibility, just like WMD, was just another illusion.

Like I said in another thread where this was posted, each party has a platform and an ideology. It is our responsibility as voters to read it and then decide what is really important to us, and how can we reconcile how we live and who we are with said platform.

To me, the party whose platform most aligns with my moral compass is the Democratic party. No party is perfect, but I refuse to align with a party that blatantly states and believes the above.

Increasingly, I find myself trying to avoid ideology (while not being able to do so completely) and just go with my moral compass and what is empirically justifiable. I wonder if the national GOP realizes what they have done in embracing the most right-wing of their elements. This agenda is GOING to wind up on the 2012 platform, mark my words, and if the Democrats don't make every single Republican running for anything beyond student-body-President famous for what is an obviously bigoted stance then those Dems don't *deserve* to be elected and should be sued for gross political malpractice.

Now, there are parts of the country that this platform is a winning strategy, that is regrettably true but as a *national* platform it can't win. What's more, the national GOP can't repudiate those planks when they are adopted in the national platform in 2012. They can't risk alienating their Tea Party base and the bits I quoted, as well as several other bits that are just as disturbing but which I won't belabor the point with here, are perfectly inline with the goals of and desires of the Tea Party folks I have seen interviewed.

Cheers
Aj