Party of ideas? Not the GOP

AAAintheBeltway · Oct 31, 2006

Quote from dddooo:

Thank you for making my point, any reasonable person would agree that there is a lot of room for compromise on taxes, terrorism and immigration. And even on abortions and gay issues there is a lot of middle ground and a compromise is quite possible. That's exactly what I was talking about, it's people like you and your party who are not seeking a compromise, instead you want to shove your extremist right-wing agenda down the throats of the rest of us, much like Hamas, much like Taleban.

You say there is room for compromise but there has been none. I'm just pointing out the facts. People are not inclined to compromise their principles. That's a virtue, not a fault. It's also why we have elections.

As for the hamas and taliban comparison, it's absurd and offensive but about what I expect from moonbats. At least you found the backbone to say something mildly critical of terrorist groups.

AAAintheBeltway · Oct 31, 2006

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You read wrong.

Disagreeing is not divisive. Not seeking compromise is. The past 6 years have been unique in the US history, that the party in power has simply refused to compromise on any issue. That is what divided this country. And your attitude displayed here reflects exactly that - "divisive."

BTW, Harriet Miers was wrong not because she was a compromise. It was because she, like the former head of FEMA, embodies the incompetence and neptism of this administration.

We had 40 years of Democrat domination of Capitol Hill during which they treated Republicans like a dog treats a fireplug.
That was not divisive apparently. Divisive is when Republicans refuse to surrender their principles.

Would you be willing to compromise civil rights laws, affirmative action, Roe v. Wade, environmental laws, how about union privileges?

Trader5287 · Oct 31, 2006

I don't buy the polls I'm seeing.

I think Republicans are going to get smoked next week - in no small part by ex-Republican moderates.

Call me out here afterwards if I need to eat crow in public.

james_bond_3rd · Oct 31, 2006

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

We had 40 years of Democrat domination of Capitol Hill during which they treated Republicans like a dog treats a fireplug.
That was not divisive apparently. Divisive is when Republicans refuse to surrender their principles.

Would you be willing to compromise civil rights laws, affirmative action, Roe v. Wade, environmental laws, how about union privileges?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

That enough?

Democrat never ruled on divisive issues. Clinton compromised on a lot - welfare reform, NAFTA, tax cuts, etc. That's why the left fringe voted for Nader in 2000. Otherwise we'd have president Gore today.

Clinton had a Republican as defense secretary. Did Bush ever have a Democrat at the cabinet level?

AAAintheBeltway · Oct 31, 2006

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

That enough?

Democrat never ruled on divisive issues. Clinton compromised on a lot - welfare reform, NAFTA, tax cuts, etc. That's why the left fringe voted for Nader in 2000. Otherwise we'd have president Gore today.

Clinton had a Republican as defense secretary. Did Bush ever have a Democrat at the cabinet level?

Of course he did. Transportation Sec. Norman Mineta. He was a major disaster who was responsible, among other thngs, for the TSA's stubborn refusal to use profiling to try to spot potential terrorists. Instead they waste resources and annoy people by strip searching grannies from Minnesota. Also CIA Director George Tenant was a democrat holdover from Clinton. Another disaster.

FanOfFridays · Oct 31, 2006

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
...Democrats and liberals, who are intoxicated with self-love because of their moral superiority ...

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

find homosexuality to be morally wrong and perverted...

Maybe you're simply making a theoretical point about the inability for conservatives to state their position on university campuses or in boardrooms, referring not to yourself but to other Republicans who find homosexuality morally wrong and perverted, and not, as I suggest with the square brackets above, representing the second statement as being reflective of your own opinion. Because if you personally find homosexuality to be morally wrong and perverted, wouldn't that indicate that you're arguing from a position of moral superiority?

I do remember you saying something like 'what happens behind closed doors shouldn't be legislated'...

btw... I'm sure you know that I have stated my disgust at the climate of intellectual chill that exists on University campuses today.

Rearden Metal · Nov 1, 2006

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I think the fault lines here are pretty clear. If you celebrate homosexual conduct, please vote Democrat. If you think it should be kept in private, that the schools are not a proper place for indoctrination on such issues and that marriage is for a man and a woman, then vote Republican.

Why is this even so important to you? You're an elephant afraid of a little mouse. Homosexuals are a small minority group- always have been, and always will be. They have every reason to fear what the hetero majority will <b>do to them</b>, not the other way around.

If 'celebrating' homosexual conduct can save this weak little minority group from a lifetime of abuse and torment (as is the historical norm), why is that so bad?

The federal government is the real threat to you and your family, not a bunch of harmless lisping pansies.

james_bond_3rd · Nov 1, 2006

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Also CIA Director George Tenant was a democrat holdover from Clinton. Another disaster.

Aren't the revisionists cute? If Tenant was such a disaster, why did Bush give him a Medal of Freedom?

Besides, why was Clinton able to pick the best of the Republicans to work for him, and Bush picked the worst (according to you) of Democrats?

jem · Nov 1, 2006

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I don't know if animals love, how they think, if and or what the "use" sex for...etc. No one really knows, they just guess, as we can't get their opinion on the matter...

What is observed, factually, is homosexual behavior in animals, in a natural setting, making homosexual behavior in over 450 species natural...

In a natural setting making it natural. What a nice spin. I could not let this go.

So let me see --- rape frequently happens outdoors in a natural setting by your logic that makes rape natural. And therefore following your logic it is good?

By the way you don't thing the researchers could categorize the sex. They seem to categorize everything else in the field.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Nov 1, 2006

Animals rape? Really? How do you know that the animal being "raped" by another animal isn't giving consent?

Then again, it may be just natural rough sex...

Researchers can't categorize "intent" of the sex, as they don't know what the real intention of animals are...those influenced by human beings to modify their "natural" behavior and instincts.

That's why most consider animal behavior in the "wild" to be fully and 100% natural...as animals function on what is believed to be nearly 100% instinct, not free will and a rational based thought process seen in most humans...

Unnatural acts by animals come from the domesticated types...

So if the urge for homosexual sex in the animal kingdom is 100% natural, human beings are also part of the animal kingdom, so homosexual sex would be 100% natural.

It is the social conditioning that is the problem, and the bugaboo you and others suffer from when they evaluate the sexual behavior of others....and proclaim that those sexual behaviors are immoral or unnatural.

Quote from jem:

In a natural setting making it natural. What a nice spin. I could not let this go.

So let me see --- rape frequently happens outdoors in a natural setting by your logic that makes rape natural. And therefore following your logic it is good?

By the way you don't thing the researchers could categorize the sex. They seem to categorize everything else in the field.