The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Gazoo on March 15, 2014, 08:58:14 pm
-
BY AARON BLAKE
March 14 at 12:16 pm
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says in a new interview that Republicans should embrace a more tolerant view of those who don't hold conservative positions on social issues.
"I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues," Paul told vocativ.com. "The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues."
Paul's comments harken back somewhat to former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels's (R) call for a "truce" on social issues within the GOP. The comment at the time drew a rebuke from social conservatives.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/14/rand-paul-gop-needs-to-agree-to-disagree-on-social-issues/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/14/rand-paul-gop-needs-to-agree-to-disagree-on-social-issues/)
-
In other words, must adopt the Democrat positions on amnesty, abortion, legalizing drugs, and homo "marriage," along with whatever perversion the left adopts next like pedophilia.
Rand is no different than daddy, just a little more subtle.
-
It seems like the more that I learn about Rand Paul, the less that I trust or like him.
Seriously.
-
In other words, must adopt the Democrat positions on amnesty, abortion, legalizing drugs, and homo "marriage," along with whatever perversion the left adopts next like pedophilia.
Rand is no different than daddy, just a little more subtle.
Just a tad.
-
Wow! Right out of the box.....attack Rand Paul because he's not going to argue with SOCONS.
:whistle:
-
My libertarian side sees what he is doing and agrees. I would love to take away the 'gotcha'- first debate questions, put out from a Candy Crowley type. By diffusing the progressive machine -by even a Cruz type candidate- saying that abortion and marriage is a states issue. Think about it...the media and the left are the ones who even put such a ridiculous question out there, to 'define the definition of marriage.' It is not for the progressives or government to define. I was filling out paper work the other day and it was full of 'significant other' choices. So, gay people can still be their SO's beneficiary. They don't want marriage defined for any other reason than empowering what they are doing and demoralizing others.
I don't think it is cowering to any high moral standard to throw a wrench in their gotchas. I am not all sure Rand can pull this off. I have concerns his foreign policies are mirrored to the progressives but worse, like his fathers. Remember when the debate question was who is your hero? Remember how W. Bush answered? He said without hesitation, Jesus Christ and he won. I don't think our countries morals have changed a bit from this. I do think the media succeeded in making the good guy the bad guy. The conservative caucus the extreme and the progressive caucus the cool accepted majority. So, if Candy asks the candidates about how marriage is defined or about abortion, refer to them as states rights while being pro-life. Like it, or not there are a lot of independents that don't want the social issues in big government.
-
Wow! Right out of the box.....attack Rand Paul because he's not going to argue with SOCONS.
:whistle:
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.
-
He's distancing himself from that image of a Social Conservative peeking into 'your' bedroom.
Let the others squirm up there on the podium....trying to be all things to all people.
He's going to disarm the bassturds right now. He 'knows' that the vast majority of Tea Party voters are already behind him.
-
A nation with no morals is a nation heading for destruction.
History has shown this time and against for thousands of years.
-
He's distancing himself from that image of a Social Conservative peeking into 'your' bedroom.
Let the others squirm up there on the podium....trying to be all things to all people.
He's going to disarm the bassturds right now. He 'knows' that the vast majority of Tea Party voters are already behind him.
CW is that GOP candidates stake a claim on the right to win the primaries and then run to the middle. Paul has decided he is positioned too close to Cruz and Rubio 2 years early.
-
My personal opinion is that social conservatives a free to hold their religious beliefs, but should not be empowered to enact them into federal law, which would force others to adhere to their beliefs.
On balance I think that Rand Paul comes the closest to holding a package of opinions and policies which match up with current national opinions.
The Tea Party was NOT formed over social conservative issues. So those that are both Tea Party and Rand enthusiasts stay with him.
I believe Rand could win both the primaries/nomination and the general election. Cruz I believe peaks out at primaries, because his range of appeal is narrow, but of course loud.
But of course it could well be somebody else. The election is still 2.5 years in the future. Primaries start early 2 years.
-
Who's asking to enact them into Federal Law??? This is and should be a states right issue - SCOTUS NEVER should have taken Roe v Wade. Seems to me we owe a lot of our current problems to the Supremes on any number of issues,
HOWEVER and this is a BIG however with me... the Federal Government aka TAXPAYERS should not be giving one single thin dime to help pay for abortions.... if a state wants them to be legal - including late term abortions - then the people who are getting them in that state pays for it out of their own pocket.... not my pocket.
-
Who's asking to enact them into Federal Law??? This is and should be a states right issue - SCOTUS NEVER should have taken Roe v Wade. Seems to me we owe a lot of our current problems to the Supremes on any number of issues,
HOWEVER and this is a BIG however with me... the Federal Government aka TAXPAYERS should not be giving one single thin dime to help pay for abortions.... if a state wants them to be legal - including late term abortions - then the people who are getting them in that state pays for it out of their own pocket.... not my pocket.
Can't disagree with you here.
-
Who's asking to enact them into Federal Law??? This is and should be a states right issue - SCOTUS NEVER should have taken Roe v Wade. Seems to me we owe a lot of our current problems to the Supremes on any number of issues,
That was a very dark era in the Court history, set into motion by Earl Warren 20 years prior, that set us on our current path to destruction. No longer were they merely judges, they were activists. They sought ways to set a dangerous and wrong precedent and sought the cases to do it. This, of course, brought a wave of lawsuits that the right side could never defend because Warren and company were already in the plaintiffs' corner.
Seems to me that with that strategy, a council of five dictators can do just about anything.
-
Federal defense of marriage movements, federal personhood movements, contraception to name a few of favorites from the SoCon enthusiasts.
IOW it is not sufficient for them to hold religious views, and to follow them.
They expect the entire nation to enact laws, which have the effect of forcing all citizens, to follow one faction's religious views.
-
Federal defense of marriage movements, federal personhood movements, contraception to name a few of favorites from the SoCon enthusiasts.
IOW it is not sufficient for them to hold religious views, and to follow them.
They expect the entire nation to enact laws, which have the effect of forcing all citizens, to follow one faction's religious views.
In other-words you don't object to paying for another persons abortion out of your tax dollars and you're fine with abortions being mandated by the federal government????? or are you just talking down to us again.
-
:silly:
-
In other-words you don't object to paying for another persons abortion out of your tax dollars and you're fine with abortions being mandated by the federal government????? or are you just talking down to us again.
Speaking for myself, I object to my taxpayer dollars laying for most all social welfare programs, I object to efforts to impose religous beliefs through government power, and I disapprove of your stalking my every post.
-
Speaking for myself, I object to my taxpayer dollars laying for most all social welfare programs, I object to efforts to impose religous beliefs through government power, and I disapprove of your stalking my every post.
Get over yourself...
I guess I missed conservatives pushing their religion on anyone.. now Muslim's that is another story... and it is liberals pushing birth control pills and abortions on the rest of us.
-
Get over yourself...
I guess I missed conservatives pushing their religion on anyone.. now Muslim's that is another story... and it is liberals pushing birth control pills and abortions on the rest of us.
That is their religion.
-
Get over yourself...
I guess I missed conservatives pushing their religion on anyone.. now Muslim's that is another story... and it is liberals pushing birth control pills and abortions on the rest of us.
CAIR is dictating the muslim religion in our country and no one in the media or the progressive left seems to care. It is now to the point that radical islam is covered-up in this tale. It's okay if it is the progressive religion that is quite cultish in our media. It is quite telling when someone raises the issue about CAIR's influence they are called islamophobes. So, bring on the political debates and raise this issue until it is so blatantly clear while asking them to stop their Christianphobia. Do this until the moderator runs out of ridiculous gotchas on the definition of a marriage.
Telling TS to get over him/her self is being kind, there is never honest debate with TS, TS is never wrong. We are so not worthy of TS.
-
Get over yourself...
I guess I missed conservatives pushing their religion on anyone.. now Muslim's that is another story... and it is liberals pushing birth control pills and abortions on the rest of us.
yes, you've most definitely missed it.
-
In other words, must adopt the Democrat positions on amnesty, abortion, legalizing drugs, and homo "marriage," along with whatever perversion the left adopts next like pedophilia.
Rand is no different than daddy, just a little more subtle.
Exactly. But, you must still stay on the GOP plantation and not think of voting third party. I wonder if Rand would agree for the GOP to disagree on taxes, foreign policy, NSA and civil liberties?
-
Federal defense of marriage movements, federal personhood movements, contraception to name a few of favorites from the SoCon enthusiasts.
IOW it is not sufficient for them to hold religious views, and to follow them.
They expect the entire nation to enact laws, which have the effect of forcing all citizens, to follow one faction's religious views.
What faction would that be? Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and Conservative Protestants have essentially the same views on abortion and gay marriage. It is about morality not a religious practice and law is fundamentally about morality. Should their moral views be swept aside because they have a religious influence? If so, you need to sweep away virtually all law in the US.
-
What faction would that be? Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and Conservative Protestants have essentially the same views on abortion and gay marriage. It is about morality not a religious practice and law is fundamentally about morality. Should their moral views be swept aside because they have a religious influence? If so, you need to sweep away virtually all law in the US.
You can not legislate morality. There is only one place that can come from. Within.
-
You can not legislate morality. There is only one place that can come from. Within.
LOL! We do it all the time. All law is about morality. The question is not whether we will legislate morality, the question is whose morality will we impose on society.
I will agree that when the culture becomes so debased that morality can be impossible to enforce.
-
LOL! We do it all the time. All law is about morality. The question is not whether we will legislate morality, the question is whose morality will we impose on society.
I will agree that when the culture becomes so debased that morality can be impossible to enforce.
It's getting there. Yeah, bit down today as far as the world goes. We all get those days.
-
Who's asking to enact them into Federal Law???
This is what many voters hear when social issues are front and center of national campaigns.
-
This is what many voters hear when social issues are front and center of national campaigns.
They listen to Santorum too much. In fact I want the government out of our bedrooms and let the states choose what they want to enact. I do not want to pay for someone's abortion and I do not want to pay for their birthcontrol......... anymore than I want to pay for NPR and PBS.
-
They listen to Santorum too much. In fact I want the government out of our bedrooms and let the states choose what they want to enact. I do not want to pay for someone's abortion and I do not want to pay for their birthcontrol......... anymore than I want to pay for NPR and PBS.
If one thinks about it, the greatest intrusions into our bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, living-rooms and garages have all taken place during the past 8 years. Beginning with the Pelosi run House dictating to us what kind of lightbulbs we must have and what size toilet we can use. Things have gone down-hill ever since with nary a whimper on the part of the GOP.
One phrase that really sets my blood to boiling is that "we'll have to agree to disagree" line that is quickly tossed out by unprincipled pansies. This country has it's roots in debate! Thank God that our Founders did not take that approach with King George, lll! I HATE that term with a passion.
Another one is "give back to the community". As a life long tax-paying, law abiding citizen that also served our country (in and out of uniform), I don't need some useless dipstick who has never done anything to pull their own weight telling me that I must do more. Screw that!
/rant
-
If one thinks about it, the greatest intrusions into our bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, living-rooms and garages have all taken place during the past 8 years. Beginning with the Pelosi run House dictating to us what kind of lightbulbs we must have and what size toilet we can use. Things have gone down-hill ever since with nary a whimper on the part of the GOP.
One phrase that really sets my blood to boiling is "we'll have to agree to disagree" line that is quickly tossed out by unprincipled pansies. I HATE that term with a passion.
Another one is "give back to the community". As a life long tax-paying, law abiding citizen that also served our country (in and out of uniform), I don't need some useless dipstick who has never done anything to pull their own weight telling me that I must do more. Screw that!
/rant
Agreed...... frankly the role of the Federal Government is national defense. It's doing a lousy job of late and they can't seem to do much else well. Let the states be what they were designed to me - laboratories where you can see what works and what doesn't work... I like Rick Perry's idea - these guys should would a couple of months every two years... then go home.
-
If one thinks about it, the greatest intrusions into our bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, living-rooms and garages have all taken place during the past 8 years. Beginning with the Pelosi run House dictating to us what kind of lightbulbs we must have and what size toilet we can use. Things have gone down-hill ever since with nary a whimper on the part of the GOP.
One phrase that really sets my blood to boiling is that "we'll have to agree to disagree" line that is quickly tossed out by unprincipled pansies. This country has it's roots in debate! Thank God that our Founders did not take that approach with King George, lll! I HATE that term with a passion.
Another one is "give back to the community". As a life long tax-paying, law abiding citizen that also served our country (in and out of uniform), I don't need some useless dipstick who has never done anything to pull their own weight telling me that I must do more. Screw that!
/rant
:hands:
-
If one thinks about it, the greatest intrusions into our bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, living-rooms and garages have all taken place during the past 8 years. Beginning with the Pelosi run House dictating to us what kind of lightbulbs we must have and what size toilet we can use. Things have gone down-hill ever since with nary a whimper on the part of the GOP.
One phrase that really sets my blood to boiling is that "we'll have to agree to disagree" line that is quickly tossed out by unprincipled pansies. This country has it's roots in debate! Thank God that our Founders did not take that approach with King George, lll! I HATE that term with a passion.
Another one is "give back to the community". As a life long tax-paying, law abiding citizen that also served our country (in and out of uniform), I don't need some useless dipstick who has never done anything to pull their own weight telling me that I must do more. Screw that!
/rant
"Agree to disagree" - meh, can live with that. Plenty of people even here that I disagree with from time to time, but we can still have a few drinks and a meal and a good time.
"Give back to the community" though - define community. It's a BS phrase used by professional BSers.
-
One phrase that really sets my blood to boiling is that "we'll have to agree to disagree" line that is quickly tossed out by unprincipled pansies. This country has it's roots in debate! Thank God that our Founders did not take that approach with King George, lll! I HATE that term with a passion.
Sorry Howie...hope you can add a little context here.
I've made the plea in here that we look inside at such time in a debate when you get to the point that being 'right' is at the expense of somebody else.
When you're tempted to type "m o r o n"....., "well have to agree to disagree!"
It certainly shouldn't be construed one is a pansy.
It's a way of keeping threads from being needlessly locked.
-
Sorry Howie...hope you can add a little context here.
I've made the plea in here that we look inside at such time in a debate when you get to the point that being 'right' is at the expense of somebody else.
When you're tempted to type "m o r o n"....., "well have to agree to disagree!"
It certainly shouldn't be construed one is a pansy.
It's a way of keeping threads from being needlessly locked.
My rant was inspired by Rand Paul's "squishy" comments, DCP. Not directed at you at all.
Just another reason why I am increasingly unimpressed with Son Of Ron.
-
My rant was inspired by Rand Paul's "squishy" comments, DCP. Not directed at you at all.
Just another reason why I am increasingly unimpressed with Son Of Ron.
thanks for the clarification, buddy! :beer:
-
In other words, must adopt the Democrat positions on amnesty, abortion, legalizing drugs, and homo "marriage," along with whatever perversion the left adopts next like pedophilia.
Rand is no different than daddy, just a little more subtle.
Disagree. Cultural change happens.
The government does not drive the culture, culture drives the government. In other words, we get the government we deserve. Change the culture and you change government. Not the other way around.
-
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.
Fear not, you're absolutely right.
-
He's distancing himself from that image of a Social Conservative peeking into 'your' bedroom.
Let the others squirm up there on the podium....trying to be all things to all people.
He's going to disarm the bassturds right now. He 'knows' that the vast majority of Tea Party voters are already behind him.
I find myself in agreement. There's a lot of libertarian in you, my friend.
We have to take social issues away from the government. It's an imperative.
Like Mark Twain said, government is merely a servant – it cannot be it's prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong.
If we don't get this done the Democrats will continue to enslave us in government control.
-
Disagree. Cultural change happens.
The government does not drive the culture, culture drives the government. In other words, we get the government we deserve. Change the culture and you change government. Not the other way around.
Agreed. This is why the likes of Beck and Limbaugh are joining the Breitbart organization, and doing other projects besides talk radio. They understand that the culture needs to be penetrated, and you have to start somewhere with it.
-
If one thinks about it, the greatest intrusions into our bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, living-rooms and garages have all taken place during the past 8 years. Beginning with the Pelosi run House dictating to us what kind of lightbulbs we must have and what size toilet we can use. Things have gone down-hill ever since with nary a whimper on the part of the GOP.
Excellent point.
One phrase that really sets my blood to boiling is that "we'll have to agree to disagree" line that is quickly tossed out by unprincipled pansies. This country has it's roots in debate! Thank God that our Founders did not take that approach with King George, lll! I HATE that term with a passion.
Comment removed to cease even more reports to the moderator panties in a wad
Another one is "give back to the community". As a life long tax-paying, law abiding citizen that also served our country (in and out of uniform), I don't need some useless dipstick who has never done anything to pull their own weight telling me that I must do more. Screw that!
You forgot the medias fav little line of 'Senator blah blah blah is doubling back on his comment saying that Obama is a ___________. weak President, race-baiter, inept community organizer. 'It is the medias way of saying...How DARE anyone say anything derogatory about their master, Obama. They imply that, someone dares to even constructively criticize Obama and they failed the first time at ever so politically correctly bullying and shaming them into silence.
-
If one thinks about it, the greatest intrusions into our bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, living-rooms and garages have all taken place during the past 8 years. Beginning with the Pelosi run House dictating to us what kind of lightbulbs we must have and what size toilet we can use. Things have gone down-hill ever since with nary a whimper on the part of the GOP.
From the New York Times, March 11, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/business/energy-environment/12bulb.html?_r=0):
"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.
-
From the New York Times, March 11, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/business/energy-environment/12bulb.html?_r=0):
"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.
I am not giving Bush or the RINOs a pass in any of this. Just remember that the Congress had been compromised and under RAT Party control when these useless laws were passed.
-
I believe the Bush administration is what enabled the Democrats to gain control of Congress in 2006, and eventually is what enabled an Obama victory. Bush failed to establish a successor to run after him, he failed to defend himself against the constant attacks - he failed when he let Karl Rove be in charge of his reputation.
I was a big supporter of Bush until 2006, and I remember coming to the realization then that he wasn't what I thought he was. I will always be thankful of the way he led after 9/11, but I think if 9/11 hadn't happened - his term would have been just like his Daddy's. A disappointment, and leading to Democrat victory. I spit on "compassionate conservatism"!
-
I believe the Bush administration is what enabled the Democrats to gain control of Congress in 2006, and eventually is what enabled an Obama victory. Bush failed to establish a successor to run after him, he failed to defend himself against the constant attacks - he failed when he let Karl Rove be in charge of his reputation.
I was a big supporter of Bush until 2006, and I remember coming to the realization then that he wasn't what I thought he was. I will always be thankful of the way he led after 9/11, but I think if 9/11 hadn't happened - his term would have been just like his Daddy's. A disappointment, and leading to Democrat victory. I spit on "compassionate conservatism"!
The birth of the TEA Party movement can be attributed in large part to the actions of the second Bush Administration (2004-2008) when you think about it. TARP, the proposed bailout of GM/Chrysler/Ford and other such Big Gubmint hogwash. The beginning of the Obama Regime just threw gasoline on a fire that was already started.
-
The birth of the TEA Party movement can be attributed in large part to the actions of the second Bush Administration (2004-2008) when you think about it. TARP, the proposed bailout of GM/Chrysler/Ford and other such Big Gubmint hogwash. The beginning of the Obama Regime just threw gasoline on a fire that was already started.
:amen:
-
One reason the TP has declined in approval, effectiveness is because they have a difficult time convincing enough voters about their focused singleness of purpose.
IOW one day it is replace democrats, but the next it becomes replace Republicans, and voters have awakened.
The Tea Party movement, through their professional business units (TP Express, TP Patriots, etc.) need to settle on a smaller list of state and district targets, and do some good.
Because repeats of Angle, Buck, Akins, Mourdock, O'Donnell will line the pockets of the top guys and gals, but cost the nation dearly.
TP, mainstream and libertarian Republicans and independents need to be united, ensure winning the Senate and increasing their House majority.
Putting that goal in jeopardy, in order to listen to some fiery speeches, is not wise to say it gently.
-
Disagree. Cultural change happens.
The government does not drive the culture, culture drives the government. In other words, we get the government we deserve. Change the culture and you change government. Not the other way around.
goopo
-
I believe the Bush administration is what enabled the Democrats to gain control of Congress in 2006, and eventually is what enabled an Obama victory. Bush failed to establish a successor to run after him, he failed to defend himself against the constant attacks - he failed when he let Karl Rove be in charge of his reputation.
I was a big supporter of Bush until 2006, and I remember coming to the realization then that he wasn't what I thought he was. I will always be thankful of the way he led after 9/11, but I think if 9/11 hadn't happened - his term would have been just like his Daddy's. A disappointment, and leading to Democrat victory. I spit on "compassionate conservatism"!
I quite agree
-
Disagree. Cultural change happens.
The government does not drive the culture, culture drives the government. In other words, we get the government we deserve. Change the culture and you change government. Not the other way around.
Pearls of wisdom.
-
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.
-
From the New York Times, March 11, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/business/energy-environment/12bulb.html?_r=0):
"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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.