Exclusive Content > The Last Wire
T.E.A. and Solipsism with Lolita - How Conservatives Killed the T.E.A. Party
Luis Gonzalez:
--- Quote from: Bigun on May 22, 2014, 11:11:15 pm ---I've been very busy today and thus late getting back to a discussion which has largely passed me by but I will make you a deal Luis.
Given the fact that as far as I know , the federal government does not issue marriage licenses I will give up my support for DOMA at the same time we do away with every other part of the federal government not specifically authorized by the Constitution. In the mean time please know that I do NOT subscribe to the line of thinking you are espousing here. Defining the meaning of certain words in law - in this case marriage - does NOT constitute an expansion of the federal government!
--- End quote ---
Given that my original point was that conservatives are every bit as willing to violate the Constitution as all other political groups, your post bring the conversation around full circle.
Thanks for proving my point.
MACVSOG68:
--- Quote from: Luis Gonzalez on May 23, 2014, 12:44:01 am ---But I won't have (in most cases) to retake the driving exam, etc. The change in license and tag is for taxation and change of address purposes, so my ability to drive is transferred from one State to the other without any need for me to meet further requirements.
I believe that at the end of the day (I detest that saying), anti same-sex marriage laws will go the way of anti-miscegenation laws.
I get the clue from Darling:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'"
--- End quote ---
Not sure how South Carolina works it now, but when I moved here I had to take their written test. I think most states have certain reciprocities based on agreements worked out rather than due to any constitutional issues, at least with state laws. Compacts are entered into all the time. Also other licenses such as medical, attorney, CPA etc aren't necessarily reciprocal.
But I do agree that ultimately, the USSC will change its position on Baker v Nelson, due more to a change in social attitudes in the Country rather than any epiphany, and it will likely be up to Kennedy.
Another time perhaps to discuss the (IMHO) differences between Loving v Virginia and gay marriage as a 14th Amendment issue.
Oceander:
--- Quote from: massadvj on May 21, 2014, 05:28:33 pm ---I don't disagree. However, the last successful GOP presidential candidate won with a plurality that included these folks. So far, I don't see any evidence that moderates can be moved to the GOP, although moderates themselves often claim if we just throw the SoCons under the bus, they'll come in droves. Well, the GOP in most of the northeast states has done just that, and where are they?
You know that I am no SoCon. But I see no reason to intentionally antagonize that faction of the party. When they propose something stupid - like public funding of churches, mandatory prayer in the schools, the teaching of creationism or a constitutional amendment banning abortion - then I will oppose those policies. But otherwise I am not going to intentionally denigrate decent, God-fearing people who are usually model citizens.
--- End quote ---
What I hate, what I detest, what I am fed to the teeth with, is the demonization that both sides of the party have heaped on each other. Sorry, but the SoCons are as guilty of this vice as are the e-GOPers (an ugly term, but why stop being ugly now). The level of personal hatred seeping into both the SoCons and e-GOPers for each other is disgusting and the only people it benefits are the democrats because not only does it weaken us directly, it gives them plenty of ammunition to use on us.
There is, honestly, only one real difference I've noticed twixt the two: the SoCons have a degree of self-satisfied sanctimony that I find repulsive. That's not to say the e-GOPers aren't sanctimonious, but the SoCons have pretty much cornered the market on that one.
Bigun:
--- Quote from: Luis Gonzalez on May 23, 2014, 12:46:58 am ---Given that my original point was that conservatives are every bit as willing to violate the Constitution as all other political groups, your post bring the conversation around full circle.
Thanks for proving my point.
--- End quote ---
Uh Huh! RIGHT!!!
Smokin Joe:
--- Quote from: alicewonders on May 21, 2014, 03:51:35 pm ---TeaParty.org - TeaParty.schmorgasbord
Never been there - don't ever plan to go there. They are just an organization that is trying to BE the tea party, I guess. There is no official Tea PARTY. No official Tea Party WEBSITE. No ballot that has the Tea Party listed on it. No national Tea Party convention - only a bunch of groups trying to establish themselves as the establishment. It's a necessary process, hopefully the fiscal conservative ideology will win the day.
The website. Is that all you got out of my answer?
--- End quote ---
How do you have a national office for a grassroots movement?
En masse, call it what you will, but TEA party groups are, of necessity local, where the rubber meets the road.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version