If I recall correctly, she supported the law but was told it would be unconstitutional. Therefore, she vetoed.
I do not consider this a strong showing of support for gay rights.
Geez…obscure the truth much? What you said is true, as far as it goes which is not very far.
So we’re agreed that this “rhetoric” that is so fundamental to the conservative movement did not make it into the convention. Which suggests that it is not so fundamental as you implied. I will assure you that the Dems would be incapable of holding a convention at which socialized healthcare, the environment, or the rich getting richer, were not mentioned.
Illegal aliens (oops, “undocumented workers”) are criminals. Is criticizing criminals now demonization?
You and another poster did not just voice liberal economic opinion. You questioned the distribution of wealth in the country and implicitly militated for its re-distribution. Re-distribution of wealth is a bedrock tenet of communism.
So McCain and Palin support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would include sexual orientation as a protected class?
That’s news to me.
Can you explain this? I don’t recall competing in a lottery to determine how much wealth I’m supposed to have.
His Board memberships have little to nothing to do with his career as a Community Organizer. For more about what it entailed, see this article written by Barack in 1990. An excerpt:
I was being ironical. When people start talking (as several have here) about the terrible, horrible inequity of rich people having more money than poor people, they tend to do so with the implicit assumption that rich people just stumbled across a couple of those canvas bags with dollar signs on them from the cartoons, and that poor people are poor because, Hell, I don’t know, Reagan came and took their house away.
They tend simultaneously to ignore that well-off people disproportionately work harder, work smarter, and make better choices in their personal and financial lives than do people who remain perpetually poor (time is an important element: Thomas Sowell always insists on pointing out that many of the rich are people who earlier in life would have been counted as poor). It’s not uniformly true, some rich people have gotten money for nothing and chicks for free, some poor people have been shafted – but there is a level playing field over the long haul. It is called human existence.
As I am the “other poster” I say bullshit.
Cite please where I advocated communism please or kindly retract your spurious assertions.
EDIT: I got too personal…fixed.
Having an opinion of any kind as to whether how the market works is a “good thing” is an implicit suggestion that you do not agree with letting the chips fall where they may, and that you are at least open to having someone (hint: the State, the Rodina) put its thumb on the scale to correct this “bad thing.”
ETA: no offense at the cram suggestion, I know I was being provocative, but I really get scared when people start suggesting, in a political context, that the distribution of wealth is something that can and should be calibrated by government or by anyone. Lots and lots of bad things started that way.
Not being a complete free market libertarian doesn’t equate to Communism.
Quite a leap of logic and assumption there.
Thinking that there should be a more even income distribution is a FAR cry from going all Robin Hood and I said nothing to that effect.
Point to a country, historically, which was successful when the gap between the haves and the have-nots has grown disproportionately large that you would deem as successful and in good order. Desiring a more even income equality can be achieved numerous ways without resorting to robbing the rich and giving to the poor.
The discussion that led to that was the Reps lack of diversity. When a substantial portion of society is not represented in a national political party it is worthy of note. They are running for an office that is supposed to represent and look after all Americans. Not just the wealthy. Not just the white people.
As an aside I recommend you read Unequal Democracy. It is a scholarly study into the economoic inequities introduced by Republicans versus Democrats. I offer it to show that “liberal” policies in no way equate to communism and that the country overall prospers more under the liberal regime (the rich still get richer, just not at the breakneck pace Reps tend to offer).
Here’s an excerpt from the New York Times Business section (bolding mine):
I don’t know if it did or not. I haven’t paid that much attention. Even if they hide it at their conventions, though (at least in prime time), that really does not make the GOP an any less hostile seeming place for anyone who isn’t a straight (or at least closeted) white Christian.
My opinion of Palin’s speech:
Delivery: OK. Content: Basically a standard political campaign speech, Republican flavor; main themes, in no particular order, were
[ul]
[li]I’m a regular gal like you[/li][li]My opponent is all talk and no substance[/li][li]My record shows that I’m strong and that I work for the people[/li][li]Rah rah small-town America[/li][li]We need a big, tough war hero to protect us in this big, scary world[/li][li]John McCain is a great man[/li][li]My opponent will raise your taxes.[/li][/ul]
I think the speechwriters were playing it safe. They didn’t want her to come across as weird, crazy, or Nanook of the North. I was surprised to count only three religious references.
I am self employed, have a pre-existing condition, and have been turned down for health insurance by every company license in my state. That’s why. It is not that I can’t afford it (I earn 6 figures)… but I am “uninsurable” in the same category as AIDS and diabetes (a somewhat rare genetic disorder that has little or no affect on my day to day life).
I think the cheap shots will appeal to certain people…and she might gain some ground. I think she’s going to be eaten alive in the debates.
Occam does not approve. The Dems certainly don’t hide their class warfare at their convention. Principles which are fundamental to appealing to the base (of any party) are not omitted from the party-faithful gathering. From that I conclude that “demonization of minorities” is not (as you alleged) a fundamental principle of conservatism or Republicanism, or they would not have omitted to fire up their base by pounding the table with it.
w-a-m"Looking like America" is not always something the Dems do too well, either.
The below is obviously from a partisan site, but I could likely reproduce the figures from Census data if I took the time.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed110607a.cfm
It was also pretty widely documented in 2000 that Bush received more money in small donations, versus Gore, who lit it up with big Hollywood and Wall Street money. Who can really claim to represent the grassroots more?
It’s ok… I left when Bush got elected (lots of people say they will leave, few do). I’d like to come back as the cost of living in the US is dirt cheap, but it all rides on health insurance.
I am sure that Nevada would have rather seen the million-or-so dollars I have put into foreign economies since I left the country. The lack of access to health care hurts everyone.
This is admittedly becoming a hijack, but if it were as simple as that, nothing other than cartoonish mustache-twirling conservative evil-for-evil’s sake (I remember some idiot N.Y.T. columnist insanely imagining some G.O.P. gathering where they “got together to figure out ways to deny Americans health care”) would explain why socialized medicine was not already in place.
By which I mean, the taxes necessary to fund socialized medicine could very well prove much more of an economic disincentive to investment in the U.S. than would the lack of socialized medicine.
I am not suggesting that the national parties need to adhere exactly to the census data. However, there is lopsided and a completely tipped balance.
Again, look at the Republican convention. I really tried hard last night to spot minorities. I was looking for it. I saw practically none and that is stunning. How can they possibly claim to represent America when a very substantial portion of America is, for all intents and purposes, not represented in their makeup?
As for donations there are plenty of poor (or not rich) white people (indeed I think there are slightly more white people on welfare than minorities). That Bush got more small donations is hardly surprising as poor white voters tend to be “values” voters. The wealthy white voters vote with their pocket book, the poor white vote with their bibles which the Reps own.