What type of Republican are you?

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

On gay marriage, I am anti. I've always been anti-gay marriage, but seeing how the No On 8 rioters are invading churches, creating derogatory ads about Mormons now I'm even more anti-gay marriage than before. I hate hypocrisy and it seems that "Equality For All" is now "Equality For All unless you don't agree with us". That's hypocrisy.

Actually, this statement sorta bothered me too, more on the basis of the portions I emphasized. To have an opinion on gay marriage is no vice one way or another. Frankly, I think the ball is more in the court of pro-gay marriage advocates to win over society, not the other way around. After all, it is a change to the way we do things, and the last I checked we change society by convincing the bulk of it to go along with that change, not expecting society to justify why a change is not in order. That said, one should base his or her opinions on this matter on the merits of the stance for or against, not on the behavior of the other camp. If it were revealed that a number of people who advocate building roads also raped babies, I'd still support building roads. The misbehavior of advocates in no way mitigates the clear and seperate case for how roads are a good idea for our country. Similarly, if gay marriage is a good idea or a bad idea based on its merits, one shouldn't allow his or her convictions to be determined, nor the intensity thereof, based on how the other side acts. The two have no direct bearing on one another. In other words, if you oppose gay marriage because some gay marriage activists got nasty with church goers, you oppose gay marriage for the wrong reasons. The behavior of gay marriage activists justifies nothing more than supporting the prosecution to the fullest extent of the law of those who misbehave (and in that you and I would be in full concurrence).  

[SHl NO KAGE]

Fiscally and Socially Conservative. Although I'm agnostic in regards to religion, I was raised Christian, and I see no reason to oppose their morals. Does that make me Religious Right?

Well, with the exception that I think the gays should be allowed to marry. I will not however defend the stereotypical outspoken homosexual, as they tend to be very needy and anti-christian. The line would end there. I will not support bestiality marriage thereafter, or anything else following that path of logic.

Also, I will support stem-cell research, but I will also be very clear about the method. I can't seem to confirm this at the moment, but you do not necessarily require an aborted fetus for embryonic stem-cell research, it is possible to use the cells from the placenta instead. This is what I've been told, anyway...  

[Garrett31212]

Well, as I've said before in other threads and made it well known, I'm not a Republican or a Democract, but a Fascist.  

[Latopazora]

quite frankly, I'm just mad at the whole Prop. 8 issue, at both sides! The global economy is failing, Mexico is on the edge of collapse, we could be forced into another war, we could lose our freedoms- and the most important proposition is about gay marriage?!! I would've liked to known more about the other propositions, the ones that deal with mostly with our tax dollors and where they're going. I don't care about gay marriage!! If the citizens want it- Ok, if not- then maybe they're not ready for it. But don't make it the more important issue, not when we have much larger problems on our hands.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Latopazora

quite frankly, I'm just mad at the whole Prop. 8 issue, at both sides! The global economy is failing, Mexico is on the edge of collapse, we could be forced into another war, we could lose our freedoms- and the most important proposition is about gay marriage?!! I would've liked to known more about the other propositions, the ones that deal with mostly with our tax dollors and where they're going. I don't care about gay marriage!! If the citizens want it- Ok, if not- then maybe they're not ready for it. But don't make it the more important issue, not when we have much larger problems on our hands.

Um, this is a state issue, so it's not like it's a huge deal, the feds aren't doing anything about gay marriage yet. And, the economy is being over exaggerated, no offense, we haven't seen a true economic collapse in about 22years, so people are worried, and the news needs a story to feed on. It's just a recession, we'll pull through.  

[Latopazora]

Rainbowfied Mouse

Latopazora

quite frankly, I'm just mad at the whole Prop. 8 issue, at both sides! The global economy is failing, Mexico is on the edge of collapse, we could be forced into another war, we could lose our freedoms- and the most important proposition is about gay marriage?!! I would've liked to known more about the other propositions, the ones that deal with mostly with our tax dollors and where they're going. I don't care about gay marriage!! If the citizens want it- Ok, if not- then maybe they're not ready for it. But don't make it the more important issue, not when we have much larger problems on our hands.

Um, this is a state issue, so it's not like it's a huge deal, the feds aren't doing anything about gay marriage yet. And, the economy is being over exaggerated, no offense, we haven't seen a true economic collapse in about 22years, so people are worried, and the news needs a story to feed on. It's just a recession, we'll pull through.

Prop. 8 was a state issue yes, but it felt as though everyone had their eye on that proposition. California's economy is failing horribly, we're broke practically. Instead of getting our tax refund checks, we'll be getting IOUs; the unemployment is going way up too, and we will have our taxes raised- regardless of what the rest of the U.S. may do. Also, we, like Arizona, Texas and New Mexico, border Mexico- and there are huge problems going on down there. I'm just furious that prop. 8 was the #1 Californian issue, and now that it passed, people are going nuts to over turn it. Maybe I shouldn't have said 'global economy' but rather 'California's economy' - I'll admit. I'm just saying, making prop. 8 the #1 issue was a mistake. The other propositions should've been getting more attention than 8.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Latopazora

Rainbowfied Mouse

Latopazora

quite frankly, I'm just mad at the whole Prop. 8 issue, at both sides! The global economy is failing, Mexico is on the edge of collapse, we could be forced into another war, we could lose our freedoms- and the most important proposition is about gay marriage?!! I would've liked to known more about the other propositions, the ones that deal with mostly with our tax dollors and where they're going. I don't care about gay marriage!! If the citizens want it- Ok, if not- then maybe they're not ready for it. But don't make it the more important issue, not when we have much larger problems on our hands.

Um, this is a state issue, so it's not like it's a huge deal, the feds aren't doing anything about gay marriage yet. And, the economy is being over exaggerated, no offense, we haven't seen a true economic collapse in about 22years, so people are worried, and the news needs a story to feed on. It's just a recession, we'll pull through.

Prop. 8 was a state issue yes, but it felt as though everyone had their eye on that proposition. California's economy is failing horribly, we're broke practically. Instead of getting our tax refund checks, we'll be getting IOUs; the unemployment is going way up too, and we will have our taxes raised- regardless of what the rest of the U.S. may do. Also, we, like Arizona, Texas and New Mexico, border Mexico- and there are huge problems going on down there. I'm just furious that prop. 8 was the #1 Californian issue, and now that it passed, people are going nuts to over turn it. Maybe I shouldn't have said 'global economy' but rather 'California's economy' - I'll admit. I'm just saying, making prop. 8 the #1 issue was a mistake. The other propositions should've been getting more attention than 8.

OF course it was. The Human Rights Campaign is very big with gay rights. And it'd be one of the few states to have it.

Come here to michigan, then you'll truly see economic recession >.>  

[Lord Bitememan]

Ditto what Rainbow said, only come on out to Detroit and look at what happens to a place when the manufacturing base has been gutted. West Michigan still has the pharmaceutical industry.

Gay marriage is going to be a perennial issue, get used to it. It probably wouldn't have been such an issue if the CA supreme court hadn't forced the issue in the first place. What baffles me is why we had Prop. 2 in Michigan in the first place, since we were nowhere in sight of the issue before the prop. came here.

But yes, the economic woes are being overblown by the media. It's a recession, nothing more. It's not even that bad of one. The Ford and Carter years make this look like a walk in the park.  

[Garrett31212]

I agree that the economy isn't as bad as everyone's complaining. The price of gas in Texas has fallen greatly to somewhere around $1.50 a gallon. Other than that, all that's changed are the prices of most products slightly.  

[spongecool890]

well im a republican conservative i am against gay rights im against abortion and i hate al gore and his stupid talk about global warming  

[spongecool890]

rainbow mouse with all respect president obama gave congress a porkulus (stimulus) bill and it had $798 billion dollars and all we Americans that work are getting is a whole $13 at the end of our pay check and you know what obama wants more money to go through and we still get nothing how is that simulating the economy  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

spongecool890

rainbow mouse with all respect president obama gave congress a porkulus (stimulus) bill and it had $798 billion dollars and all we Americans that work are getting is a whole $13 at the end of our pay check and you know what obama wants more money to go through and we still get nothing how is that simulating the economy

If everyone's getting $13... there's about, rounding up, 305 million people in the US means about 4.2% of that money is getting used, meaning a lot is going elsewhere into small businesses. Every american might get $13 as you say, but not all the money needs to go into peoples pockets, some needs to be invested into businesses and government programs.

Aside from that, not everyone cares about economics, in fact, economics is on my lower list of priorities... probably near the bottom, I could careless is we have a laissez-faire president, or a socialist; civil rights, the arts, equal education, abortion, reusable energy, and LGBT gay rights are my top issues. And Obama just seems to be the best out of all those in my opinion.  

[Lord Bitememan]

spongecoo:

Quote:

rainbow mouse with all respect president obama gave congress a porkulus (stimulus) bill and it had $798 billion dollars

Which he campaigned on. So, you're accusing Obama of fulfilling a campaign promise. And, bear in mind, Obama won based on economic issues.

Rainbow:

Quote:

If everyone's getting $13... there's about, rounding up, 305 million people in the US means about 4.2% of that money is getting used, meaning a lot is going elsewhere into small businesses.

Non-sequituer. 305 million people has no bearing on a percentage of the money getting used to any capacity. What you mean to say is that only 4.2% of the total stimulus went into tax relief. That would make your statement coherant.

Quote:

Every american might get $13 as you say, but not all the money needs to go into peoples pockets, some needs to be invested into businesses and government programs.

The problem is Obama's stimulus cut most of that in favor of public works projects. This was less a stimulus bill than a spending bill. The bulk of the bill is on infrastructure building, the argument being that this will stimulate the economy. The problem is, that only works if you turn it into a permanant budget expenditure (which we can't afford). Otherwise, here is what's going to happen:

The money that has just been approved will now need to be appropriated. That means people will have to put together proposals for projects that money can be spent on, those proposals will have to be reveiwed to determine their merit, then appropriations will have to be granted for projects that pass muster. This is a slow process. You're talking months before the funding is even approved. Then they have to hire the crews, get the logistics in place, put up all the detour signs, etc. Then for two months some road crews will have jobs. Of course, you're looking at about 8 months down the line before that even happens. Now, this isn't going to help EVERY unemployed worker. Road construction is different than carpentry, but since homebuilding was hit hardest due to the subprime crisis there's a lot more carpenters out of work than homebuilders. They won't be helped by this. Instead we'll have a run on road-building crews. We will fill this void by bringing in undocumented Mexicans who have those skills and will work for half the cost. The money they earn will largely go to remittences to their families back in Mexico. Two months after this anemic stimullus finally goes into effect the projects will conclude. That means everyone's out of a job. Obama will have to go back to Congress to beg for more money, but this time Congress will be reluctant to give it without major tax hikes to shore up the eye-popping debt this is running. Obama will approve. Tax increases will destroy invesment capital, which will in turn squelch any type of nacent recovery which might be in place.

This is what happens when we tinker with the economy rather than just sit back and let it hit its natural highs and lows.

Quote:

Aside from that, not everyone cares about economics, in fact, economics is on my lower list of priorities

Maybe on yours, but it was the single biggest issue in the past election. It was the issue McCain lost the suburbs on, and that's what delivered the election to Obama. So, it might be lower on your personal list of priorities, but in the exit polls voters overwhelmingly indicated that this issue was more important to them than even terrorism.

Quote:

civil rights, the arts, equal education, abortion, reusable energy, and LGBT gay rights are my top issues. And Obama just seems to be the best out of all those in my opinion.

The problem is, if voters had voted on those issues McCain would have won. Don't forget, California voted overwhelmingly for Obama and, in the same breath, banned gay marriage. In fact a number of blue states have taken the steps of banning gay marriage, scrapping affirmative action, and some have even placed some measured restrictions on abortion. Your top issues produce Republican presidents, only the economy right now produces a Democrat. When this stimulus fails, that issue is no longer going to be the Democratic playground.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Quote:

Non-sequituer. 305 million people has no bearing on a percentage of the money getting used to any capacity. What you mean to say is that only 4.2% of the total stimulus went into tax relief. That would make your statement coherant.

I'm saying 4.2% of the money is being used on the people, who obviously don't need the money, because they couldn't spend it right before.

Quote:

The problem is Obama's stimulus cut most of that in favor of public works projects. This was less a stimulus bill than a spending bill. The bulk of the bill is on infrastructure building, the argument being that this will stimulate the economy. The problem is, that only works if you turn it into a permanant budget expenditure (which we can't afford). Otherwise, here is what's going to happen:

...
...

It wouldn't happen that way, that'd be fiscal irresponsibility on Congress's part.

Sounds like the PWP that was around under the FDR Administration. Honestly, I don't think a few more months is going to do anything to make our economy worse... so if it is this way, then we just live in a little turmoil a little more.

Might I remind you that's how it was before the Great Depression. We need safety nets to catch our big falls.

Quote:

Maybe on yours, but it was the single biggest issue in the past election. It was the issue McCain lost the suburbs on, and that's what delivered the election to Obama. So, it might be lower on your personal list of priorities, but in the exit polls voters overwhelmingly indicated that this issue was more important to them than even terrorism.

Many people also believe that it's going to be another Great Depression, when it's a small recession.

Quote:

The problem is, if voters had voted on those issues McCain would have won. Don't forget, California voted overwhelmingly for Obama and, in the same breath, banned gay marriage. In fact a number of blue states have taken the steps of banning gay marriage, scrapping affirmative action, and some have even placed some measured restrictions on abortion. Your top issues produce Republican presidents, only the economy right now produces a Democrat. When this stimulus fails, that issue is no longer going to be the Democratic playground.

Can't refute that XD  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

It wouldn't happen that way, that'd be fiscal irresponsibility on Congress's part.

There's no other way for it to happen.

1. Appropriations: It's either appropriate the money, or just dole it out. If you just dole it out it turns into the bank bailout, where no one can keep track of where it went, it gets misspent, and it fails to do what it was aimed to do. Appropriations is the only responsible way to do it, and it's time consuming.

2. Appropriations process: You need to look at the projects being submitted. You can't just toss money at everyone asking for it. If you did that you'd have scams out the door coming through and getting federal money. Again, only responsible thing to do.

3. Logistics: Road-building projects can't just descend from nowhere without giving people any warning. You need to give people time to plan alternate routs, give the infrastructure time to prepare for re-routing traffic. You need to retime lights to accomodate detour traffic. You need to plan out all these steps ahead of time so it happens smoothly. Again, it's the only responsible thing to do.

4. Infrastructure: The money was spent on infrastructure to handle what is largely a private sector problem. That means the only thing they can do marginally related is infrastructure projects (roads and schools). Some facilities will be built, but not enough to supplement the massive losses out of the enormous home-building sector. Roads, on the other hand, are not fungible building skill. They require heavy machinery skills, that's not always to be found in unemployed home builders. Trust me, my brother was an independant contractor prior to all this. Now he's a bartender. Think he wouldn't take a road-building job if his skills were comparable? Unfortunately roads are one of the few building projects Congress has authority over. As an aside, the more viable public building project for reviving the manufacturing base would have been military spending, unfortunately Obama wants to cut that.

5. Labor Shortages: We only have so many road-builders in this country. We will inevitably run into shortages in road-building with a huge spike in building. So, what do you do? Do you bring in people who have no skills in the field just to cover the shortage? So, basically, we spend first rate money to build second rate roads built by people with no applicable skills in the field. Or, you bring in people who know how to build roads, and overlook little things like citizenship. I'm telling you, when Congress is itching to get the money out the door they're not going to care if we use illegal Mexican labor to get the job done, and we will, and the "stimulus" money will end up south of the border making other's economies better, not ours.

6. Follow-up Bill: Okay, in 10 months when the jobs have all dried up and economic growth is still anemic at best what do we do? Do we just shrug and say "Oh well, tried our best, went a trillion dollars deeper into debt, now let's pack it up on economic policy and move on to apointing some ambassadors"? The obvious problem willl occur to them in a year that the economy isn't recovering, and that the jobs the last stimulus put out have dried up. No policy-maker is going to just walk off and let it sit. They're going to try more policy. That means in a year we will be sold on the necessity of "Stimulus II."

7. Tax Hike: It should not escape your notice that we went nearly two trillion dollars further into debt in the span of a year monkeying with the economy. It's not like we just sell the debt and forget about it. You have to pay interest on debt. It's the 3rd largest expenditure in the annual budget, and if we default on the interest we destroy the credit rating of the US (read that global depression). Well, when you raise your debt by nearly 30% and want to go further in, you need to start considering your overall revenue. In the case of the US, that means taxes. It's either that or we start shouldering 30% more expense per annum on interest for the debt and start slashing spending in other areas to cover it. There's no other way.

So yes, it's not fiscal responsibility, it's the only viable trajectory for the stimulus.

Quote:

Might I remind you that's how it was before the Great Depression. We need safety nets to catch our big falls.

Actually, most recessions that turned into depressions were the result of government interferance. The Great Depression was a stock market panic that got pushed over the brink with the Smoot-Hawley Act. Had they not signed that bill the stock market crash would have worked its way through and been on the way to recovery by the end of Hoover's term. It was this tariff bill which caused all other industrialized nations to enact reciprocal legislation that drove it over the edge. It wiped out international export.