Bull. I’m not saying the Green Party is against gay rights, since from the part of the platform you quoted, they obviously support them, but to say that they’ve introduced most of the GLBT bills is just flat out wrong. They don’t have enough power to introduce any bills; the Democratic Party has done that. I’m sure they’d like to draft and submit those laws, but they actually need to be elected to do that at all, let alone to do most of them.
A valuable point. May I add also that regional stances are also an ingredient?
I was a Republican for over 20 years. In Upstate New York, where it was, at the time, a party of moderate values and non-intrusiveness. You’re from Montana, I believe, and there are a lot of paleoconservative Republicans scattered throughout the Mountain States who are of a non-doctrinaire libertarian persuasion – “some regulation is probably necessary, but it should be kept to a minimum and as non-intrusive as possible.” Typically, they are not opposed to gay marriage or the recognition of gays’ rights per se, though they may end up being represented by politicans who are.
LCRs, I think, are typically idealists who think the Republicn Party can be changed from within – and whose stance on other issues more closely corresponds with the GOP than the typical Democratic stance. I’m not prepared to say they’re totally wrong, but I think the Rovean spinmeisters and the activist Religious Right have the elephant by its short hairs, and are not inclined o let go.
I agree, Polycarp. The big point there is that members of the Republican party (or, more correctly, “registered Republicans”) are not the same as leaders of the Republican party.
The regional differences are immense. East-coasters tend to think of Democrats being the working blue-collar people and Republicans being the wealthy business owners. Around here, we think of Republicans as being the working class ranchers, farmers, welders, and such; and the Democrats are the wealthy people from Los Angeles buying second homes in the mountains.
Captain Carrot, you’re absolutely right. I read that question incorrectly. Of course the Green Party hasn’t introduced legislation, because it hasn’t had the chance, and I’m sorry that I implied that.
They certainly would if they could, but they haven’t been given the chance to. I have to wonder what would happen if every gay, lesbian, and bisexual voted Green to get those precious marriage rights. Would the candidate win? Does anyone know our voting percentage?
Nationwide, anywhere from 2 (probably too low) to 10% (probably too high) of the population is gay, and since there’s no evidence that gays and straights differ interms of either age distribution or voter registration, gay people probably make up between 2-10% of the voters.
Common sense dictates that the number of people who self-identify as gay is going to be higher in the adult population than the juvenile population.
Excellent point.
This is an odd leap of logic. Advocating personal responsibility does not imply not caring about little guys (or any other guys).
While I’m not a Republican, I am a big advocate of personal responsibility. Explain to me how the following implies I don’t care about little guys:
-
I think that the government should step in to take care of people who were adversely affected by natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes). I do not believe that the government should step in to take care of people who made stupid choices (e.g., providing medical care to people who were injured while committing crimes).
-
I think that if you get fired from your job, you should get unemployment for some period of time. If you quit your job for non-medical reasons–especially if you don’t hunt for another job–you shouldn’t get squat.
-
I think that if you get drunk and do something stupid, you should be treated exactly as if you had done it sober – you chose to get drunk.
-
I think that if a CEO makes stupid decisions and takes a company down the toilet, he or she should not receive a “golden parachute” after being fired.
-
I think that if I buy a widget clearly labeled as a toilet cleaner and ram it up my nose–causing me permanent impotence and odoriferous flatulence, I should not be able to sue the inventor of the widget, the company that made the widget, the company that sold the widget, and the delivery company that delivered the widget. The government should not step in to force the company to put “WARNING: DO NOT RAM UP NOSE” labels on each widget. I did something stupid and the results are my own damned fault.
And so on.
Personal responsibility also extends to being responsible for your family, your community, and the world you live in.
I don’t see any of these as political positions so much as sensible ones. Most of the dems and pubs alike that I know would agree with them all (save perhaps for the “medical care for people injured in committing crimes”- I know nobody who would just mock a burglar while he died).
Well, I view them as sensible, too, but politically the Democrats often seem to take the opposite tack: Whatever you do, it’s not really your fault. I don’t feel that the government’s job is to involve itself in every aspect of our lives and play nanny. We need to be responsible for our own actions. That’s why I have trouble with both major parties–they get too involved in our personal lives.
I’m not talking about mocking a burglar while he dies. I’m talking about a burglar getting hurt during commission of a crime and our tax dollars providing him with free medical care while in prison (or worse, having him sue the people he was burgling). Or people sneaking across the border illegally and then getting free medical care here. Or people who flout the motorcycle helmet laws and expect someone else to pay for medical care they wouldn’t have needed if they were wearing the helmet.
Just to clarify that last one: I do not object to you riding a motorcycle without a helmet. But it’s your choice, and you shouldn’t do it unless you have adequate insurance or enough money of your own to pay for the medical care required if you crash and suffer head injuries.
All generalizations are wrong.
Not unprecedented.
I recall a story about a black woman who was totally determined to be a member in good standing within the Ku Klux Klan.
I can’t find a link to it (pretty old news at this point, was on a web site pertaining to the annual events contributing to the world’s “continuing slide into mediocrity” or some such thing, circa 10 years ago… this particular story headlined as “Most Clueless Individual”).
Including this one!
Please note that I used the word “often.” That’s not the kind of flat-out declaration you’ve been making in this thread.
Yes. I’ve declared all Republicans to be totally selfish and evil, including my father, and my best friend, and Abraham Lincoln and further, I’ve declared that they all want me to pray in school and own a hand-gun.
Fuck, man. I was using a sweeping generalization to make an obnoxious point.
I think you should loosen something up – you’re obviously wrapped a little too tight.
Sorry, maybe I’m not understanding your point, here, but what are we supposed to do while the burglar dies?
Why draw the line at helmets? Why not just decline care for anyone who rides a motorcycle? It is, after all, far more dangerous than driving a car, helmet or not.
My apologies. Let me be clearer. I have no objection to providing medical care to those in need. I wish we had a decent healthcare system so the subject wouldn’t even come up.
My objection relates to PAYING for healthcare for someone injured in the commission of a crime. The burglar should receive the required emergency care and then be asked for his insurance information. If he (or she) is uninsured and doesn’t have the cash to pay for treatment, then a program can be set up to allow him to work off the debt.
You’re missing my point. Motorcycles are LEGAL. If you purchase a motorcycle legally, register it, insure it, and follow appropriate traffic laws, then you’re entitled to the same treatment as anyone else.
If, however, you choose to break the law in a state that requires helmets by riding without one, then I don’t think the citizens of that state should have to pay for the medical care you receive if you get injured.
Okay, that makes more sense. Are you suggesting that they work off the debt while in prison? I’m not sure I agree with that. I’ve got problems with the use of inmates as forced labor. Not because I feel sorry for the inmates, but because I’d prefer those jobs go to people who haven’t broken the law.
If, instead, it’s carried as a debt after they leave prison, I don’t have as much of an objection to that, although being released from prison with a crushing medical debt does seem likely to increase the chances of recidivism.
I was confused, because the “medical expense” argument was one of the primary reasons for institution helmet laws in the first place. If there is no law requiring helmets, then you don’t mind paying medical care for uninsured motorcyclists injured while not wearing a helmet?
But, as above, they should still get medical care, they should just be required to pay for it, right? Except, considering the kinds of injuries you’re talking about here, it’s highly unlikely that the motorcyclist is ever going to work again. So, who should pay for his medical care?
I honestly haven’t thought about that angle. I had always figured that they didn’t have anything else to do in prison, so give them some crummy minimum-wage job that nobody else wants and let 'em work off the debt.
Of course I mind. In many (most? all?) states, driving without insurance is, in itself, illegal. It bothered me greatly when my mother’s car was hit by an uninsured motorist without a driver’s license, and the cop let the other driver leave, saying, “There’s nothing we can do about it anyway.” My mother, who was driving legally, was stuck with an expensive repair bill. The person who was committing a crime by driving uninsured without a license, got away clean.
If we can’t come up with a system like “pay-at-the-pump” that will guarantee everyone’s insured, then we have to implement some real penalties for driving without insurance.
Beats the heck out of me. Our entire insurance system is broken. There just shouldn’t be a way for someone to get out on the road without it. But there is, and you and I are the ones penalized for it when our tax dollars pay medical bills for people injured while driving uninsured. I wish I had an answer, but I don’t.
Yeah, but that’s liability insurance, so that if you wreck someone else’s car, they don’t have to eat the repair costs. So far as I know, no state requires that drivers have health insurance.
You mean, imposing a gas tax to cover the expenses incurred by uninsured motorists? I dunno. I can see some merit in it, but on the other hand, you’re also making careful drivers pay the same amount as reckless ones, which doesn’t strike me as significantly fairer than the problem we’re seeking to redress.
Well, we’re the ones who pay for it when anyone who’s uninsured gets injured for any reason. I don’t think talking specifically about cars and motorcycles really makes much of a difference in this conversation, nor does blaming the person who doesn’t have insurance, when for a goodly number of people, affordable health insurance simply isn’t an option.