A new Republican ideas site called Rebuild the Party has rejected Marc Perkel’s Idea that the Republican Party should embrace REALITY. Here’s the idea that was deemed inappropriate and rejected. Perhaps there is no hope for the Republicans.
The GOP Platform should be REALITY Based – inappropriate
I believe that it is important for the GOP to embrace REALITY. I think that in the past the party has turned a blind eye to reality and I think that our future depends on our party making reality their friend.
#61 – Loser
>>Should their feelings be considered even if we
>>don’t agree with them?
Not in this case, no.
Some people don’t like rare meat, some don’t like Hawaiian shirts, some don’t like classical (or rap) music, some don’t like red cars. Some don’t like computers. Some don’t like reality TV. Some don’t like foreign travel.
Are we to take every whim of every flake who doesn’t like this or that, and hold a referendum on whether to outlaw this or that??
If I had ever met ANYONE who was really opposed to same-sex marriage who based it on anything other than the GodHatesFags mentality, I might think about it a little harder. The straw-man excuses they give (it will destroy hetero marriage, it’s “always been that way”, “God wants it that way”, same-sex couples aren’t fit to be parents, blah blah blah) all fall away under scrutiny, and the only thing that’s left is God (or whoever) HatesFags. Dot org. Homophobia.
Other than the fact that some people have their panties in a twist over someone else doing what they themselves would prefer not to do, can you think of a single reason to outlaw same-sex marriage? And “some folks don’t like it” doesn’t cut the mustard. For every thing there is on God’s green earth, some folks don’t like it.
Are you seriously proposing that it’s OK to deny people the right to pursue happiness because of the “feelings” of people who have absolutely nothing to do with that pursuit??
So where exactly is this so call Reality, that Welfare is sucess? The Soviet Union wasn’t evil, didn’t operat Gulags, murder millions, prosecut the jews. Where China is their ultimate in civil liberties and a Progressive’s idea of Heaven.
When a Progressive like US Secretary of State Madeleine Dimbright praises Kim Jong II. It must really set the imagination of Progressives afire when thousands of slaves are seen dancing for Kim Jong, so they invent mandatory volenteering for everyone except themselves.
The only thing that really expresses how much I despise these leftist/commies is to call them Demoncrats – following after the father that is in hell, Satin. And all the Demons can do is to make up lies and pretend that they define reality with their words.
Traaxx
#63 – Tracks
>>The only thing that really expresses how much I
>>despise these leftist/commies is to call them
>>Demoncrats – following after the father that is in
>>hell, Satin.
Jesus. And James Hill says the __LIBS__ are angry? You sound like restraining order material, son. You’re out of control!!
#62, Poison,
Are you seriously proposing that it’s OK to deny people the right to pursue happiness because of the “feelings” of people who have absolutely nothing to do with that pursuit??
I’m not proposing anything. Everything in your post is based on personal opinion.
We still haven’t arrived at an answer yet. I want to know by who’s standards do we allow one person’s pursuit of happiness to infringe on another person’s pursuit? If a larger group of people don’t want to see something on the street, aren’t they getting infringed on? Isn’t that harmful to society?
Sometimes you lose. So. Reality is 46% of the electorate voted for McCain. Hardly a mandate or landslide for Obama.
Reality is 70% of the African American vote in California was against gay marriage.
Reality is that the ammendment was already challenged before voting day and it stood it’s ground.
So, who needs a dose of reality?
#65 – Loser
>>If a larger group of people don’t want to see
>>something on the street, aren’t they getting
>>infringed on? Isn’t that harmful to society?
No. And no. Protecting the rights of the individual against the mob is more important. Slavery, miscegenation laws, women’s sufferage, etc.
Besides, it’s not against the law for two guys to make out on the street, and that is the only thing any of the hatemongers would ever “see”.
So they’re f&cked on that one. They’re going to see it whether they like it or not.
It’s just the KNOWLEDGE that two men (or women) may have a valid marriage certificate that infuriates them. They see nothing, they hear nothing, they smell nothing, it impinges on them in no way whatsoever… it’s the mere KNOWLEDGE that such a thing has the audacity to exist that drives them into a frenzy of hatred.
This is mindless homophobia. Nothing more. And it’s a disgrace to liberty that you support this kind of hatemongering.
Perhaps it is YOU that’s “poison”, not me.
# 58 bobbo
So what does that mean for right? 8 years in the wilderness and hope to take down the house while they’re waiting?
# 60 lividd said “Wow, mustard owns this round. epic rants”
Yea, I know what you mean. I kind of use the Peanuts sound when the grown ups talk. You know, the trumpet thing?
#68 – Cubie
>>So what does that mean for right? 8 years in the
>>wilderness and hope to take down the house while
>>they’re waiting?
No. It means watch. Learn. See how professionals do it. And try to round up a candidate in ’12 that’s not a mental midget.
Sound good?
#66 – GirlFriend
>>Reality is 70% of the African American vote in
>>California was against gay marriage.
Homophobia. GodHatesFags. Dot Org. Perhaps if “should we bring back slavery?” was on the ballots, they might have thought twice about stripping a minority segment of the population of basic civil rights.
Mr Tard.
That’s reality.
As far as I can tell, there is no group that represents my ideals: small government, more power to the States, market driven ideals with regulation, strong foreign policy, fiscally conservative which means lowering the debt and reducing expenditures and most importantly, socially liberal which means the government shouldn’t get to decide who gets benefits based on whether both partners are carrying the same tackle.
The Republicans used to be closer but that was some time ago. Now they’ve become the party of religious crazies (Huckabee, Palin etc) and since the Democrats are still a grease fire (see Pelosi, Dean etc) there really aren’t many choices out there.
#67, Poison,
Protecting the rights of the individual against the mob is more important.
I agree 100%. This isn’t exactly the answer I was looking for but it will do just as nicely. Thank you.
There is really only one entity capable of protecting the individual and that entity is the government. The government is responsible for protecting the rights of the individual. With that, I am sure you agree with me.
SL stated in another post there was a difference between a right and privilege — and he’s correct. What does this have to do with marriage?
Marriage is something the state has taken control of through the use of licensing. It is no longer a right. Marriage is a privilege granted by the state because you cannot get married without its permission — that permission being in the form of a license.
And as it is a privilege controlled by the state, the people get to decide how to implement it.
You asked for my next question. Here it is:
How do we ensure that anybody can marry anybody they want to without the threat of the “people” saying it is against the law?
# 74 LibertyLover said, “How do we ensure that anybody can marry anybody they want to without the threat of the “people” saying it is against the law?”
I can answer that one.
#75 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>I can answer that one.
Go for it.
# 76 Mister Mustard said, “Go for it.”
Give the status of “married” no legal standing.
#77, Got it in one.
As the government seems to have a problem with how marriage works and it seems to be denying the basic right to the pursuit of happiness for a non-trivial number of people, then obviously we need to remove its ability to control that marriage process.
Isn’t that what the Declaration of Independence said?
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it”
Get the government out of the marriage business and this gay marriage issue will disappear.
#78 – Loser
>>Get the government out of the marriage business and
>>this gay marriage issue will disappear.
I think you’d get more of a fight out of the right-wingers over the notion of abolishing marriage than you would over the homo-on-homo thing.
Interesting concept, the abolition of marriage. I don’t know that I oppose it, but I’ll guarantee you a whole lot of the “McCain core constituency” types would.
After all, the homo-on-homo issue doesn’t really affect them personally, other than to offend their tender sensibilities that someone else is doing something they don’t want to (or at least SAY they don’t want to). Telling them that their very own personal marriage has no legal standing would probably be an even harder sell.
#65, Liberty Loser,
If a larger group of people don’t want to see something on the street, aren’t they getting infringed on? Isn’t that harmful to society?
It depends. If that “something” is another person’s / group’s civil rights then the answer is a resounding NO. We aren’t talking about what color to paint the City Hall here, we are discussing the civil rights of homosexuals to live as heterosexuals live.
We shouldn’t let the majority decide civil rights. When we allowed that to happen we ended up with slavery, segregation, one church religion, qualified suffrage (male, land, station), lose of freedom of speech, and many others. In most cases it wasn’t a majority of the people that decided the civil rights of others, it was the majority of those allowed to answer or vote. For an example of this point it has been estimated that far less than 25% of Americans had any say in the acceptance of the Constitution, yet we live with it today.
Mr. Mustard is correct (in my opinion) that the anti-gay sector is largely motivated by the “godhatesfags dot org” crowd, which in turn is pushed by the more extreme religious leaders. Of course, your mileage may differ for your own reasons.
It has been the courts that traditionally have extended civil rights, not the majority of people.
While I disagree with where you seem to be headed here, I concede you are making good arguments.
#79/80, Wow. Agreement (of a sort) from the Mister Twins. I’m not sure if I made a mistake in my arguments or not 🙂
Fusion, While I disagree with where you seem to be headed here, I concede you are making good arguments.
I am heading in the direction I always head in — big government is the root of the vast majority of this nation’s problems. If the government didn’t have control over such a vast range of issues, there wouldn’t be any “trough” for the special interest groups and greedy/power hungry pols to feed from.
Remove the incentive. Otherwise, we end up with unintended consequences as in the marriage privilege.
# 78 LibertyLover said, “#77, Got it in one.”
Simple logic and a deep understanding of what the Founding Fathers wanted to accomplish…
# 37 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, “Paddy….all of it.”
All of what?