Wouldn’t matter in the slightest. The Republicans have had a black (and female) National Security Advisor/Secretary of State, a Hispanic Attorney General, a black Supreme Court justice, a former black head of the party, a female former VP candidate and a current presidential candidate, and countless female governors and legislators around the country, yet we’re still called racist and sexist by your crowd. Because that’s what your side does. If you couldn’t call your opponents names and demonize them you’d never win an election. And you know that. So you call your opponents names and you demonize them even when there’s no justification for it, and you’d undoubtedly do the same again even if even if it got to the point that the Republicans had a better record of embracing and promoting gays than you do.
You’re right. We should abide by the Republicans’ examples: “unAmerican,” “traitors,” “pals around with terrorists,” “hates whitey,” “Barney Fag,” “Quota Queen,” and on and on and on…
You want an example of a black man helping a Republican winning an election? How about Willie Horton?
Well, you see, you’re conflating a couple of inequal things there. Sure, there are random right-wing assholes flinging insults around, but their views aren’t pushed by the mainstream news and entertainment media like the accusations of racism and sexism and “homophobia” (a misnomer if ever there was one) and sheer stupidity aimed at the right are promoted by mainstream liberal sources. We see, hear and read constantly the view that conservatives are selfish and greedy and mean and this is why they oppose things like government health care and income redistribution. Somehow we never hear about how conservatives are mistrustful of government and don’t want it running our lives. We never hear about the philosophical differences that cause us to believe that people are more free and happy when they can live their lives free from govenment dictates. We never hear about how conservatives believe that the more government gives to people the less they will provide for themselves. And we never hear about how conservatives feel the the liberal approach is a drag on the economy rather than a driver of it. No, all we ever hear from mainstream sources is how mean, selfish and stupid conservatives are, and about how caring and concerned about justice and the American way liberals are.
Of course, if you can point to any news, cable or entertainment sources apart from Fox and perhaps Rush Limbaugh that routinely (or hell, even occasionally) promote the view that liberals are “un-American”, “traitors”, “hate whitey”, etc., I’ll be glad to to take it under consideration and perhaps reevaluate my position.
Non sequitur. Republicans are called racist and sexist because, even with minorities and women in high places, the party still acts to oppress them. Change the policies, not just the people, and the criticisms would stop.
So, it’s only the media sources that are unabashedly right-wing that call liberals traitors, and you think that’s evidence that the right wing doesn’t engage in name-calling?
No, they don’t. What they do is favor other approaches than those promoted by liberals, and for that they get called names. Take for example the issue of forced busing. Many conservatives who were fully in support of civil rights and an end to segregation still opposed forced busing. Some of this opposition was practical and some of it was philosophical. Didn’t matter. It was what liberals thought should be done and anyone who didn’t agree got labeled racist. Another example would be in regard to women’s rights, where political correctness attempted to dictate that there was no job a man could do that a woman couldn’t do equally well. Mention firefighters carrying people down ladders by way of rebuttal and you instantly became a sexist. Etc., etc., etc. It’s been my vast experience in life that when somebody gets called a racist or sexist or whatever, what it really means is that he isn’t toeing the liberal line. I will give you that there has been much genuine public opposition to gay rights within the conservative community, but I would wager that as a percentage there are just as many people under the liberal umbrella who are squicked out by homosexuality as there are under the conservative umbrella. And I’d wager there’s just as much racism too. It’s just that for some curious reason these people never seem to see the light of day in the way that conservatives do, and they most certainly don’t form the basis for broad brush condemnation of the entire group they way they do when it comes to conservatives. There’s just a hell of a lot of dishonesty coming out of the liberal camp on issues like this, and it’s all designed to condemn conservatives as a whole for the misdeeds of a few.
I think it’s evidence that right-wing name-calling is relatively minor when compared to the overwhelmingly negative portrayals of the right by virtually every other media source.
Approaches like requiring ID to vote and then closing DMVs in heavily-minority areas, or detaining anyone with brown skin or a Hispanic last name and requiring them to show papers.
Add a dash of political expediency, a la Romney …
No.
Do you havfe evidence that this is a widespread practice?
I have no problem with people having to demonstrate that they are legally entitled to vote. I have to do it. And to address the implication in your post, it’s utterly ridiculous, in this country where we have so many Hispanic immigrants here illegally, to attempt to assign racism to efforts to make sure that Hispanic voters are legally entitled to vote. You may favor throwing the polls open to anyone whose vote may favor your side, but as long as we have laws on the books stating that only citizens may vote in national elections - something that every country does as far as I know - people should have to prove they’re entitled to vote, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Actually, we do. But we never hear about that when it comes to the bedroom and the womb.
If “conservatives” are so damed respectful of individual and states’ rights that they would not care about who sleeps with whom, who marries whom, or want to decide whether a fertilized egg should be implanted in a womb.
“Conservatives” are about freedom is, frankly, a crock.
And no, Bert and Ernie should not get married.
Have you forgotten about Arizona already? The law they passed there wasn’t just about confirming citizenship to vote.
Inflicting their liberal politicians =fighting for equal rights
impose gay marriage=allowing people who have been created gay by god ,to live a normal life with the rights of any other citizen
By “my side”, you mean Democrats? Liberals? Gays? Because as to the first part, of course, Democrats are going are going to try to demonize Republicans whatever positions they take. They’re opposing political parties and that’s what opposing political parties do. So if you think that’s what I was saying, you’re right, that’s unrealistic.
Same with liberals, to the extent that Republicanism is associated with conservatism, although liberals will support liberal Republicans. My dad is a big time liberal and he always supported Javitz, and voted for Anderson in 1980. So yeah, saying “liberals are going to be against conservatives” is also one of those obvious statements.
But I’m not talking about liberals or Democrats here. The Republican party will probably never get them as a group (although Reagan’s victory depended a lot on Democratic support). I’m talking about gays, who aren’t necessarily Democrats and aren’t necessarily liberals. Sexual orientation doesn’t inherently affect your political views or party orientation, and there are plenty of conservative gays and lesbians out there. But when you’ve got one party and movement out there that says, “We don’t want you to get married, we don’t want you to adopt kids, we don’t want you to serve in the military, we think there’s something wrong with you”, that tends to turn gays into single issue voters to vote for the other guy.
There have been rumors of Perry’s infidelity and back awhile about gay affairs. You won’t get those on mainstream. But his statements about NY gays not on his radar would be different if he were president. Then his anti gay policies would matter to the whole country. He has campaigned heavily against gay marriage and gay equality. He is a gay bigot.
No I have not gathered a new respect for him. I was hoping when I read the first post, but he has trashed that with his real views.
It doesn’t go against the supremacy clause. What it does do is stress the fact that the Founding Fathers were adamantly against the federal government’s usurping power and turning into a nightmare like it has these days. The 10th is breached far more than observed; if it were observed instead of ignored, 3/4 of the agencies and departments of the federal government would not exist.
It’s not ignored nearly as much as the 9th, though.
If Perry had his way, the Constitution would ban gay marriage:
This isn’t inherently contradictory to his previous position necesarily. He could carve out a very specific position of “as the Constitution stands now, we have to recognize what other states are allowed to do, but if I could, I’d change the Constitution”.
Still, it does contradict his generally federalist position these matters should be up to the states to decide. Having the federal government decide what qualifies as marriage is the sort of federal overreaching stuff he supposedly rails against.
No,I don’t. He claims to be a serious conservative yet he uses states’ rights to avoid alienating the right. The man is a hypocrit…if you support it,say so but if you don’t then say so.
No, wait, I’ve got it. The Constitution should ban gay marriage, and if New York doesn’t like that, that’s fine, they can just exercise their state right to secede.
Just in case anyone is still following. Rick Perry signed onto the NOM pledge vowing to back a constitutional ban of gay marriage.
[QUOTE=http://www.dallasvoice.com/breaking-perry-signs-anti-gay-marriage-pledge-1087368.html]
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a GOP presidential candidate, has signed an anti-gay marriage pledge from the National Organization for Marriage, the Associated Press reports. By signing the pledge, Perry has vowed to support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a whole month before reversing his opinion. Certainly no record when it comes to Republican hypocrisy. So if you were liking him that teensiest amount you can go back to believing he’s the anti-christ.