Author Topic: Rand Paul: GOP needs to ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues  (Read 4426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: Rand Paul: GOP needs to ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues
« Reply #50 on: March 19, 2014, 03:59:42 am »
Rand may not be *the* candidate to get behind in the end and I am waiting to hear his foreign policy ideas at debates. But yeah, the strict social conservatives should not let Candy Crowley ask anyone how a marriage is defined. I will probably get flamed but this is how I feel.

Here's what I don't get about this whole "defining marriage" debate.

I define my marriage. No one else does.

Tomorrow, when gays are legally able to marry, my marriage remains what I define it to be.

So the definition of what constitutes traditional marriage doesn't change because such a thing as non-traditional marriage exists, any more than Classical music is erased from existence by the presence of Hip Hop.

I don't see anyone making the argument that traditional marriage should cease to exist, and I don't see how traditional marriage would cease to exist simply because non-traditional marriage may become legal.

I think that SoCons don't have an argument here.

If you don't want to marry someone of your same sex, no one is saying that you have to.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Formerly Once-Ler

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 0
Re: Rand Paul: GOP needs to ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues
« Reply #51 on: March 19, 2014, 06:44:17 am »

From the New York Times, March 11, 2011:

"A 2007 bill, passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush, will make the familiar incandescent bulb subject to strict efficiency standards next year."

Let's not forget republicans had a hand in banning incandescent lightbulbs. Republicans could have voted "nay" as a block and GW could have vetoed. Pinning this stupid legislation strictly on Democrats.

Yeah, well that does look bad.  The thing is one area where the GOP is out of touch with the people they represent is the environment. Me, I love progress.  I think buildings and highways and parking lots are beautiful things, but the vast majority of voters think swamps/wetlands are a good things instead of breeding grounds for snakes and other preaditors.  So they want government oversight and limits on expantion. 

In the grand scheme of things the lightbulb issue doesn't change votes.  But if we really wanted to reverse the ban we would need to convince voters that the new bulbs do not use 30% less energy and play up the toxic stuff inside the bulb. 

As far as using that vote to condemn the party.  The GOP needs to make inroads with the people who say we should recycle our trash.  Most are ignorant that recycling does not reclaim its cost through selling the material, and most of it still ends up in the landfill.  But often when I point this out to people they still think it's worth doing.  Or they dismiss it out of hand without checking and are angry that I point it out.  They think recycling makes them a better person.  That they are contributing to society.  Same with the fans of the new lightbulb.  Same with the people who are against fracking.  Or for higher fuel standards in cars.   Or the people who purchase overpriced "sustainable" coffee. The list could go on much longer because the majority of voters believe they personally have duty to protect the environment from the filthy businesses who polute the world and they will vote for a candidate who claims he wants to protect the environment, over the candidate who says he wants to restore the Constitutional values that made this country great.   

The RINO Congressmen who voted for the lightbulb ban will simply say "I tried to save energy for the children who inherite the mess we leave behind.  Am I happy with all the effects of the law?  No.  Will I stop trying to make the world a better place for may grandson? No."  8888crybaby

And they will win re-election in their RINO district.

Offline speekinout

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,329
Re: Rand Paul: GOP needs to ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues
« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2014, 11:14:19 pm »
Yeah, well that does look bad.  The thing is one area where the GOP is out of touch with the people they represent is the environment. Me, I love progress.  I think buildings and highways and parking lots are beautiful things, but the vast majority of voters think swamps/wetlands are a good things instead of breeding grounds for snakes and other preaditors.  So they want government oversight and limits on expantion. 

I was an environmentalist before the libs took over that word. Now maybe I can be a conservationist, but I'm not sure that word is still politically neutral.
Buildings and highways and other human constructions do have a place in this world, but they can be awfully destructive, too. I guess you're too young to know about the famous London fogs, the Steel City (Pittsburgh) fogs, or even the year that the Ohio river caught on fire.
And there are a lot of good reasons for keeping those snakes and predators around - they do a good job of keeping rats and other vile creatures under control.
This is truly a marvelous planet, and human beings are just a small part of it. We don't need to trash it; we can respect it and take care of it. That isn't hard to do for most of us in the developed countries - we can dispose of waste responsibly - adequate sewer systems; landfills instead of just throwing trash around (yes, some things can be recycled economically); we can build buildings and parking lots where they won't interfere with natural water flow; we can use clean energy (yes, fossil fuels can be clean); we can stop disposing of waste by dumping it in lakes and oceans.
But please don't get all environmental concerns mixed up with the global warming hoax. Global warming issues are about politics and power and not about the environment. Light bulbs, car engines, and oil pipelines have nothing to do with saving the environment. They're about financing the leftist cause.

Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,021
  • Gender: Female
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
Re: Rand Paul: GOP needs to ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues
« Reply #53 on: March 19, 2014, 11:52:10 pm »
I was an environmentalist before the libs took over that word. Now maybe I can be a conservationist, but I'm not sure that word is still politically neutral.
Buildings and highways and other human constructions do have a place in this world, but they can be awfully destructive, too. I guess you're too young to know about the famous London fogs, the Steel City (Pittsburgh) fogs, or even the year that the Ohio river caught on fire.
And there are a lot of good reasons for keeping those snakes and predators around - they do a good job of keeping rats and other vile creatures under control.
This is truly a marvelous planet, and human beings are just a small part of it. We don't need to trash it; we can respect it and take care of it. That isn't hard to do for most of us in the developed countries - we can dispose of waste responsibly - adequate sewer systems; landfills instead of just throwing trash around (yes, some things can be recycled economically); we can build buildings and parking lots where they won't interfere with natural water flow; we can use clean energy (yes, fossil fuels can be clean); we can stop disposing of waste by dumping it in lakes and oceans.
But please don't get all environmental concerns mixed up with the global warming hoax. Global warming issues are about politics and power and not about the environment. Light bulbs, car engines, and oil pipelines have nothing to do with saving the environment. They're about financing the leftist cause.

100% agree with you!  I too, consider myself an "environmentalist" - but today's usage is an embarassment to me.  Heck, I'll go even further and say I'm an old "hippie".  I want to live as self-sufficiently as possible, in peace - just want to be left alone to do my thing and I want to leave others alone too, as long as we don't hurt each other.  Is that too much to ask?
Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline speekinout

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,329
Re: Rand Paul: GOP needs to ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues
« Reply #54 on: March 20, 2014, 12:09:54 am »
100% agree with you!  I too, consider myself an "environmentalist" - but today's usage is an embarassment to me.  Heck, I'll go even further and say I'm an old "hippie".  I want to live as self-sufficiently as possible, in peace - just want to be left alone to do my thing and I want to leave others alone too, as long as we don't hurt each other.  Is that too much to ask?

Oh, my, yes, alice! But I'm not maybe so good at leaving others alone. I am a conservative, but I have done things like protest a commercial development on sensitive waterfront. It pains me that I might be one of only 2 or 3 conservatives in a mob of protestors for something like that.
I don't really know how to describe us - old hippie might be the best idea.  :beer:

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,804
  • Gender: Male
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Rand Paul: GOP needs to ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues
« Reply #55 on: March 20, 2014, 12:44:00 am »
I was an environmentalist before the libs took over that word. Now maybe I can be a conservationist, but I'm not sure that word is still politically neutral.
Buildings and highways and other human constructions do have a place in this world, but they can be awfully destructive, too. I guess you're too young to know about the famous London fogs, the Steel City (Pittsburgh) fogs, or even the year that the Ohio river caught on fire.
And there are a lot of good reasons for keeping those snakes and predators around - they do a good job of keeping rats and other vile creatures under control.
This is truly a marvelous planet, and human beings are just a small part of it. We don't need to trash it; we can respect it and take care of it. That isn't hard to do for most of us in the developed countries - we can dispose of waste responsibly - adequate sewer systems; landfills instead of just throwing trash around (yes, some things can be recycled economically); we can build buildings and parking lots where they won't interfere with natural water flow; we can use clean energy (yes, fossil fuels can be clean); we can stop disposing of waste by dumping it in lakes and oceans.
But please don't get all environmental concerns mixed up with the global warming hoax. Global warming issues are about politics and power and not about the environment. Light bulbs, car engines, and oil pipelines have nothing to do with saving the environment. They're about financing the leftist cause.

I don't know what to call it, but I know exactly what you mean.

We are here as stewards. Both for God and for our children's children. It is, or should be, as much a part of being a conservative as respecting privacy.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Howie66

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 798
  • Gender: Male
  • MOLON LABE & SEMPER FI!
Re: Rand Paul: GOP needs to ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues
« Reply #56 on: March 20, 2014, 12:46:00 am »
100% agree with you!  I too, consider myself an "environmentalist" - but today's usage is an embarassment to me.  Heck, I'll go even further and say I'm an old "hippie".  I want to live as self-sufficiently as possible, in peace - just want to be left alone to do my thing and I want to leave others alone too, as long as we don't hurt each other.  Is that too much to ask?

Not at all, Ma'am! I agree with your take.

I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery.  But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes:  If you bleep with me, I'll kill you all.

Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders (Note: Mattis did NOT say "BLEEP". He threw the F Bomb)

I didn't enlist in the Corps just to watch my country become a Third World Communist Shit-hole. Don't know anyone who did.