A question for the *************

[Canelo Phresh]

1st ********* and the fact the constitution doesn't define marriage.

My point being that I just don't understand the contradictions.

WHy do you hate the 2nd ********* but own a gun?

[New England]

Again, not answering my question...LOL

I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, I just really want an answer. It's the principle that is what is important. When you hear Tea Party leaders for example talk about less govt, less intrusion, personal freedoms and individual rights, why does that not extend to social issues?

If you are against gay marriage for example, that's your right. I will defend the right of people to vote against gay marriage, protest against it, do whatever they want.

I just want to know why the liberties when it comes to money, and not personal choice?

much of that is an appeal to a part of their voting block, which is working class, religious. these men are true *************, with conservativism as their best interest, but they're voted in by people who are confused about their own interests.

why do certain groups of working class people vote for *************?

you've surely heard of the "religious right wing."



many right leaning politicians use the more social aspects of conservative policy to gather votes. what's important to a right leaning politician and leader is the fiscal elements of conservatism.

************* are business friendly. so why are they being supported by laregely uneducated, working class people? shouldn't they lean to the left, and look to enact policies that benefit workers?

that's where these issues outside of fiscal politics come into play.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

WHy do you hate the 2nd ********* but own a gun?

I don't hate the 2nd *********. If we are going to have a discussion, then don't put words in my mouth and let's talk facts.

I never said I hated the 2nd ********* or even want to do away with it. I think it should be revised and the verbage should be re-written. "The right to bear arms" means so many more things now in the 2010's then it meant in the 1700's.

We need to just take another look at it, and have logical, intelligent controls that will at least prevent as many unnecessary deaths as possible.

[~AK49~]

1st ********* and the fact the constitution doesn't define marriage.

My point being that I just don't understand the contradictions.

What part of the 1st ********* protects marriage.....for anybody? Its not even close, you're just reaching to make this into an anti-constitution situation.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

much of that is an appeal to a part of their voting block, which is working class, religious. these men are true *************, with conservativism as their best interest, but they're voted in by people who are confused about their own interests.

why do certain groups of working class people vote for *************?

you've surely heard of the "religious right wing."



many right leaning politicians use the more social aspects of conservative policy to gather votes. what's important to a right leaning politician and leader is the fiscal elements of conservatism.

************* are business friendly. so why are they being supported by laregely uneducated, working class people? shouldn't they lean to the left, and look to enact policies that benefit workers?

that's where these issues outside of fiscal politics come into play.

Good points, but let me ask you this. Why then do they do that to cater only to their base? **********s have lost many votes doing that, and fair or unfair are being seen or depicted as the anti gay, anti woman and anti progressive thinking. When you see where the country is going, that is counter intuitive to wanting to collect votes.

You are right though, I never understood why the poor vote against their own better interests.

What part of the 1st ********* protects marriage.....for anybody? Its not even close, you're just reaching to make this into an anti-constitution situation.

I should have put a period in between the sentences there. 1st ********* as in separation of church and state. Then I made the point of the Constitution not defining marriage which it doesn't.

Also, it is unconstitutional to not allow gays to marry.

[~AK49~]

Also, it is unconstitutional to not allow gays to marry.

How so? Is it unconstitutional to not allow....siblings to marry?

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

How so? Is it unconstitutional to not allow....siblings to marry?

I believe that ****** is a much different topic to *******uality. Polygamy would have made your point much better.

I do not believe siblings should marry for health reasons I think any rational person can agree on.

[New England]

Good points, but let me ask you this. Why then do they do that to cater only to their base? **********s have lost many votes doing that, and fair or unfair are being seen or depicted as the anti gay, anti woman and anti progressive thinking. When you see where the country is going, that is counter intuitive to wanting to collect votes.

You are right though, I never understood why the poor vote against their own better interests.



I should have put a period in between the sentences there. 1st ********* as in separation of church and state. Then I made the point of the Constitution not defining marriage which it doesn't.

Also, it is unconstitutional to not allow gays to marry.

the question you've asked should be covered in the response i gave. it's not like they're explicitly turning away left leaning voters. their conservative social policies function to get them votes.

these are bipartisan politics. there is an "us and them" mentality. they're not likely to get ********ic / left leaning voters anyway, and ********** politicians worry about being moderate [further left,] detracting from their votes from **********s.

[One_Tycoon]

So this is supposedly the "conservative" Fox News that thread starers listens to:






Why is Bill O’Reilly Calling For a Higher Minimum Wage? (VIDEO)




As congress debates a ********ic plan to raise the minimum wage to $10.10, Bill O’Reilly has weighed in from the “No Spin Zone.”


“I say, fine: up it,” the talk show host proclaimed.

The abrasive pundit’s endorsement of the ********ic plan has been greeted with approval by many progressives. Yet, as progressive commentators have pointed out, O’Reilly’s position is a break with conservative thinking on the issue. In 1980, Ronald Reagan said the minimum wage “has caused more misery and unemployment than anything since the Great Depression.”

O’Reilly’s statement did not go unchallenged. When his guest, Lou Dobbs, asked O’Reilly how much he’d like to raise the minimum wage, the Fox News host quickly blurted out “ten bucks an hour” – seeming to pull the number out of the air.

Yet, while O’Reilly did not provide an economic rationalization for this number, its source is no mystery: it is the same arbitrary increase that congressional ********s are currently touting.

President ***** initially advocated a minimum wage of only $9 an hour. If a minimum wage of $10 will generate more prosperity than *****’s original plan, why not raise the minimum wage to $11 – or, for that matter, to $100? In the words of the late economist Murray Rothbard, “If the minimum wage is such a wonderful anti-poverty measure… why you are helping the working poor by such piddling amounts?”

According to the US Small Business Administration, small businesses employ about half of US workers. Whatever progressives might imagine, these companies do not have secret pits of money that they delight in withholding from their employees. Whenever the minimum wage is increased, small businesses may simply have to employ fewer people – ironically leaving the most downtrodden workers worse off than they were before.

Yet, when Dobbs noted that “It’s gonna be tough on a lot of folks running small businesses,” O’Reilly shook his head in dismissal.

“I’m willing to pay, and I have means, so I know this is uh… but I think Americans in general would be willing to pay a few more cents for products to up it to ten bucks. Again, it’s only six percent.”

O’Reilly is correct about one thing: he has far more means then the small business owners and employees who are truly impacted by this government imposition.

O’Reilly’s comments epitomize a growing divide in the ********** party: the gap between the empty suit establishment and the grassroots voters it ignores.

[One_Tycoon]

So your response is that if you champion gay rights your most likely gay? Or if you champion pro choice you just go around having ********s?

This is why people move away from conservatism, I have to laugh at this nonsense.....

Well of course there are exceptions. Is there a stat that shows conservative women personally having ********s at a great rate? Peter Thiel...the gay conservative Billionaire is an exception. Though he still votes with his wallet and has embraced Capitalism...despite the R-Party not having a platform for Gays. Then there is the odd closet Conservative...but then again even they culturally don't accept open gayness on a personal level, thus keep quiet until they get caught and ostracized,

But in general yes...hence why it's a good thing when they don't reproduce [because they're gay, because they have ********s, because they're ********/********s/Progressives/Leftists]. Then there is the single-mother welfare queens [which is another fiscal issue] which do reproduce...which we need to eliminate through attrition by cutting off said welfare and eliminating the incentive for children...unless they're ready to marry and be self-sufficient. Of course those running to shrink Govt and liberate the Free Market can't be as crass as me....and should strategically dance around these issues to prevent being trapped and demonized.

I also support Voter ID laws.

most ************* i talk to don't watch a lot of TV and don't watch FOXNEWS. These ************* are professionals in their field, well educated in the economy and foreign policy. I am a Libertarian myself and get in heated debates with these people, but always respectful.

******** on the other hand, i don't deal with nor discuss politics with. It's better that way.

In the words of Thomas Paine:

"To argue with a man who has abandoned reason is like administering medicine to the dead"

I like this. You're right...but it's a nice mental exercise every now and then.