Moscow Bans Gay Pride...for 100 years.

[TheExtraPoint]

I dont know if you were aiming that at me or not...

I posted this link here because I thought it was hilarious that the Russian government felt like banning gay pride (which in and of itself is just plainly stupid) for 100 years was an effective measure...like homosexuality will all of a sudden disappear in 100 years. I mean, seriously, if you're going to ban something like Gay Pride for 100 years, fuck it, why not make it 1000 years? Awww hell, who's counting? How about forever?

It made me laugh.

That's why I posted it.

I've got no issue with homosexuals.

Naw brother. You're sarcasm was obvious, as is the absurdity of the whole thing. I simply wanted to point out that for all of their condemnations of Russia, conservatives and the Kremlin have anti-gay prejudice in common. Also a member of this elite group are radical Islamists.

Sorry for the confusion.

[HoustonRaven]

TEP loves that broad brush of his, throwing it around it like man hole covers. The KKK lumps people into tidy little groups too. Makes it easier to put them down in their mind. Kinda sad really.

Anyway, back on topic. I think most people, left or right, condemn this type of move. Just goes to show there is still a lot of backwards thinking in that part of the world.

[wickedsolo]

TEP loves that broad brush of his, throwing it around it like man hole covers. The KKK lumps people into tidy little groups too. Makes it easier to put them down in their mind. Kinda sad really.

Anyway, back on topic. I think most people, left or right, condemn this type of move. Just goes to show there is still a lot of backwards thinking in that part of the world.

Very true HR and honestly, I think a lot of people don't realize how racist, sexist, and bigoted a lot of Europe still is.

Muslims are still treated like 2nd hand citizens in a lot of countries like France & Italy.

[Greg]

I'll amend my comment:

Another example of how the overwhelming majority of American conservatives and their representatives have more in common with groups they disavow than they are willing to accept or understand.

Wave as your party leaves you behind my friend. You're an unwitting moderate by today's Republican standards.

This take displays a complete lack of understadning this country's political history. Seriously, the party that recently expanded Medicare and gave us things like the ADA, Head Start, and on and on and on, is a VERY far cry from Reagan, much less Goldwater and true conservatives of the old GOP.

LOL, seriously. Today's moderate Republican is a flaming liberal next to JFK.

[TheExtraPoint]

This take displays a complete lack of understadning this country's political history. Seriously, the party that recently expanded Medicare and gave us things like the ADA, Head Start, and on and on and on, is a VERY far cry from Reagan, much less Goldwater and true conservatives of the old GOP.

LOL, seriously. Today's moderate Republican is a flaming liberal next to JFK.

Sure, moderate conservatives are more liberal than "severe conservatives" like Mitt Romney on SOME issues - especially when compared to a guy who lived 50 years ago (which by the way probably says more about the merits and/or poularity of progressive ideology than I presume you'd be willing to admit).

Of course, if you were to look at the current President's record on gun control, I'd argue he is to the right of every Democratic President in the history of this country. By contrast, how "conservative" would Ronald Reagan - who raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his Presidency - appear to be in the context of today's neo-conservative political ideology. He'd suddenly be pretty unpopular. Or maybe not. I can't keep up sometimes...

What's more important to the discussion in my view is that the power center of the Republican party - the group of voters, politicians and corporations driving the party's policy and rhetoric - is to the right of the the previous Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, and to the right of their most recent President George W. Bush.

Most reasonable people agree that the historical American conservatism you likely aspire to (maybe represented by a guy like Ron Paul for instance) is far different than today's neo-conservatism that has become the dominant force in Republican politics. I had to chuckle when you said "today's moderate Republican". I know they are out there, but they aren't exactly being represented so far as I can tell.

Most important to this THREAD however, you failed to address my overarching point in your attempt to minimize my argument. Russia, the country Mitt Romney coined "our number one geopolitical foe", and American conservatives actually agree that rights for non-heterosexual human beings should be removed by the state. It's not a connection I care to delve into too deeply into as it's in many ways redundant around here. But I do think it's fascinating whenever American conservatives, Russian Communists and Muslim Fundamentalists all find themselves in each others company on virtually any issue.

[NCRAVEN]

Of course, if you were to look at the current President's record on gun control, I'd argue he is to the right of every Democratic President in the history of this country. By contrast, how "conservative" would Ronald Reagan - who raised the debt ceiling 11 times during his Presidency - appear to be in the context of today's neo-conservative political ideology. He'd suddenly be pretty unpopular. Or maybe not. I can't keep up sometimes...

I love how when liberals bring up Reagan it's always about the debt, but when the same is said about BHO they find excuses for him or don't hold it against him.

What's more important to the discussion in my view is that the power center of the Republican party - the group of voters, politicians and corporations driving the party's policy and rhetoric - is to the right of the the previous Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, and to the right of their most recent President George W. Bush.

Most reasonable people agree that the historical American conservatism you likely aspire to (maybe represented by a guy like Ron Paul for instance) is far different than today's neo-conservatism that has become the dominant force in Republican politics. I had to chuckle when you said "today's moderate Republican". I know they are out there, but they aren't exactly being represented so far as I can tell.

Most important to this THREAD however, you failed to address my overarching point in your attempt to minimize my argument. Russia, the country Mitt Romney coined "our number one geopolitical foe", and American conservatives actually agree that rights for non-heterosexual human beings should be removed by the state. It's not a connection I care to delve into too deeply into as it's in many ways redundant around here. But I do think it's fascinating whenever American conservatives, Russian Communists and Muslim Fundamentalists all find themselves in each others company on virtually any issue.

And here we are again... always tying views of people who are against gay marriage strictly to people, who are on the right, conservative or republican.

You have acknowledged in previous threads that democrat or people on the left or liberals, have voted against gay marriage.

For instance here in NC in the primaries there were 1.6 million people who voted for the amendment (to make mare strictly between a man and woman) and like 800,000 voted against it. Yet there were equal number of voters (or damn close to it) from each political party.

I know it doesn't fit your nice little argument that every republican/conservative/the right is a prejudice bigot and it's exclusive republican/conservative/the right. But facts are facts, and while you may be entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

[HoustonRaven]

Of course, if you were to look at the current President's record on gun control, I'd argue he is to the right of every Democratic President in the history of this country. By contrast, how "conservative" would Ronald Reagan - who raised the debt ceiling 18 times during his Presidency - appear to be in the context of today's neo-conservative political ideology. He'd suddenly be pretty unpopular. Or maybe not. I can't keep up sometimes...

President's don't raise or lower the debt ceiling. Congress does.

And your spin on Obama's positions on gun control are amazingly ill-informed. He has already instructed the DoT to limit the number of armed pilots on commercial aircraft. He supported legislation introduced by Senator Lautenburg, limiting the sale of high capacity clips. In November of 2010, he tried to ban target shooting on public lands. One of his first acts as President was issuing an executive order, banning the importation of rifles that have been deemed historic. He has also been a public supporter of the UN Arms Trade Treaty which seeks to ban all handguns.

And lets us not forget his justice department allowing guns to flow freely across the border so he'd have the ultimate gun ban taking point.

[TheExtraPoint]

I love how when liberals bring up Reagan it's always about the debt, but when the same is said about BHO they find excuses for him or don't hold it against him.

18> barely 1.

And to me, raising the debt ceiling isn't exclusively wrong. In fact, the mere threat by Republicans of us not doing so caused a dip in our credit rating as you recall (or don't).

And here we are again... always tying views of people who are against gay marriage strictly to people, who are on the right, conservative or republican.

You have acknowledged in previous threads that democrat or people on the left or liberals, have voted against gay marriage.

For instance here in NC in the primaries there were 1.6 million people who voted for the amendment (to make mare strictly between a man and woman) and like 800,000 voted against it. Yet there were equal number of voters (or damn close to it) from each political party.

I know it doesn't fit your nice little argument that every republican/conservative/the right is a prejudice bigot and it's exclusive republican/conservative/the right. But facts are facts, and while you may be entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

It's funny that you supported the legislation, but dont' want to take ownership of it. I wouldn't either if I voted like you did. It's a disgrace.

Who proposed the legislation? Who supported it? Are you really so delusional as to think that this isn't at the core of evangelical Christianity and as a result neo-conservativism? You aren't entitled to your own facts either, but you are more than welcome to interpret the however you want. That's America, baby.

I'm not generalizing, nor am I so simple as to think that all conservatives believe any one thing. That's simply how you choose to read it (and everything with which you disagree - selectively). There are many Democratic supporters who exercise similar prejudice, the best example being religious African Americans (though that seems to be slowly changing thanks to the President). I've acknowledged that prejudice is not limited to any one group of people, and you said as much in your response, yet for some reason can't view my comments in that context...

Ultimately we are all a reflection of the company we keep. When you vote in favor of preventing anyone to marry anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation, the reasons why aren't nearly as important as the outcome it produces. Of course you're argument for your vote that "government shouldn't be involved in these things" is intellectually dishonest, because government is no less involved than it was before the vote, and perhaps now more than it reasonably should be.

On the flip side, accomplishments for this minority group under this somewhat-progressive President speak for themselves. The Democratic party's approach to non-heterosexual individuals is not reflected by the minority of prejudicial ideals on the fringe of their party. The same can't be said for the Republican party, irrespective of your personal views, justifications, or willful distraction. Every aspect of the party's policy is dictated by the extreme right. That might not represent your own ideals, but it likely will earn your vote.

[NCRAVEN]

18> barely 1.

And to me, raising the debt ceiling isn't exclusively wrong. In fact, the mere threat by Republicans of us not doing so caused a dip in our credit rating as you recall (or don't).

I wasn't talking debt ceiling specifically but debt in general.

Let me get this straight, you're claiming our credit rating was lowered because Republicans threatened not to allow the country to borrow more money?
:insane:

It's funny that you supported the legislation, but dont' want to take ownership of it. I wouldn't either if I voted like you did. It's a disgrace.

This is awesome, now you're rewriting history to frame your arguments. That my friend is disgraceful.

You need to go back and read the thread Galen started about BHO announced support of Gay Marriage where I said I voted against the amendment.

Who proposed the legislation? Who supported it? Are you really so delusional as to think that this isn't at the core of evangelical Christianity and as a result neo-conservativism? You aren't entitled to your own facts either, but you are more than welcome to interpret the however you want. That's America, baby.

I'm not generalizing, nor am I so simple as to think that all conservatives believe any one thing. That's simply how you choose to read it (and everything with which you disagree - selectively). There are many Democratic supporters who exercise similar prejudice, the best example being religious African Americans (though that seems to be slowly changing thanks to the President). I've acknowledged that prejudice is not limited to any one group of people, and you said as much in your response, yet for some reason can't view my comments in that context...

You are generalizing and you are saying all conservatives believe one thing. That is what you and I ALWAYS go back and forth over

I interpret them that way because read your previous mentioned nothing about anyone other than Republicans. You were very clear about it be conservative/republican views. You routinely say nothing about Democrats or anyone other than Republicans/conservatives/the right until your confronted about it.

And I said you've acknowledge in previous threads but not the post I quoted today, it's like you forgot it was pointed out to you earlier in the thread.

[TheExtraPoint]

President's don't raise or lower the debt ceiling. Congress does

Weak. President's also have the power to stop it or encourage it. We know what side of history both men find themselves on however you choose to qualify it (it's the correct side, by the way). If you want to use that same logic, why do so many call the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare"? It was introduced by Charlie Rangel. In today's climate, President's are held accountable for everything that happens under their watch in all facets of government, rightly or wrongly (I think the latter).

And your spin on Obama's positions on gun control are amazingly ill-informed. He has already instructed the DoT to limit the number of armed pilots on commercial aircraft. He supported legislation introduced by Senator Lautenburg, limiting the sale of high capacity clips. In November of 2010, he tried to ban target shooting on public lands. One of his first acts as President was issuing an executive order, banning the importation of rifles that have been deemed historic. He has also been a public supporter of the UN Arms Trade Treaty which seeks to ban all handguns.

And lets us not forget his justice department allowing guns to flow freely across the border so he'd have the ultimate gun ban taking point.

Weaker still, you counteract my "spin" with a laughable conspiracy theory that may or may not have started in the blogosphere, and a small handful of ideas he supports or believes in but hasn't at all pursued as President? A flimsy example of a reduction in federal air marshals intended to somehow correlate to the important issue of gun control? You gotta come a little harder than that.

I get what the President supports. Increased gun control. That's a core progressive value. But his efforts or accomplishments to that end are nowhere to be found, and don't in any way suggest a conspiracy to "take your guns away". If the President was able to address the issue of gun control in the way I suspect he (and I for that matter) believe is best, you wouldn't be terribly concerned about historic rifle imports or air marshal reductions or clip sizes.

[HoustonRaven]

A wordy response to the simple notion that Obama is everything good, we are everything bad.

Debating someone with such a narrow world view is tedious at best.

[NCRAVEN]

A wordy response to the simple notion that Obama is everything good, we are everything bad.

Debating someone with such a narrow world view is tedious at best.

My thoughts exactly.

I generally spend time on here during the day because I work in an EXTREMELY small office, so I debate with the two Libs for entertainment. But it get's old debating a 10,000 word response that amounts to:

Democrat good, Republican bad