I don't want to get too into this conversation, but I think it's pretty clear that Ryan is against gay rights - his voting record proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. And in my opinion, being against gay rights makes a person homophobic.
There are more factors for the way a politician votes other than their own personal feelings. I'll just take this example. Were the politicinas that voted against making airbags standard equipment in vehicles safetyphobic?
Oh god, let's not steer this conversation towards cars again!! :fp:
No politician votes against all those pieces of legislation unless they personally feel that gays shouldn't have those rights. Obviously there are other considerations as well, but that doesn't negate the first fact... Unless you're suggesting the alternative that Ryan actually does believe in gay rights and votes against them anyway, thus voting against human and civil rights, just to secure votes or get into someone's back pocket... which would be equally as heinous. I don't think that's the case though. Obviously there are other considerations as well.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't want to get too into this conversation, but I think it's pretty clear that Ryan is against gay rights - his voting record proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. And in my opinion, being against gay rights makes a person homophobic.
There are more factors for the way a politician votes other than their own personal feelings. I'll just take this example. Were the politicinas that voted against making airbags standard equipment in vehicles safetyphobic?
Oh god, let's not steer this conversation towards cars again!! :fp:
No politician votes against all those pieces of legislation unless they personally feel that gays shouldn't have those rights. Obviously there are other considerations as well, but that doesn't negate the first fact... Unless you're suggesting the alternative that Ryan actually does believe in gay rights and votes against them anyway, thus voting against human and civil rights, just to secure votes or get into someone's back pocket... which would be equally as heinous. I don't think that's the case though. Obviously there are other considerations as well.
I just break all logic down to it's simplest form. There are also politicians that voted against subsidized lunches in public schools? Are they nutritionphobic?
There are more factors for the way a politician votes other than their own personal feelings. I'll just take this example. Were the politicinas that voted against making airbags standard equipment in vehicles safetyphobic?
Oh god, let's not steer this conversation towards cars again!! :fp:
No politician votes against all those pieces of legislation unless they personally feel that gays shouldn't have those rights. Obviously there are other considerations as well, but that doesn't negate the first fact... Unless you're suggesting the alternative that Ryan actually does believe in gay rights and votes against them anyway, thus voting against human and civil rights, just to secure votes or get into someone's back pocket... which would be equally as heinous. I don't think that's the case though. Obviously there are other considerations as well.
I just break all logic down to it's simplest form. There are also politicians that voted against subsidized lunches in public schools? Are they nutritionphobic?
I know you do... but it really doesn't work very well a lot of the time!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I know you do... but it really doesn't work very well a lot of the time!
Really? I believe it works perfectly. If someone voted against same sex marriage it's obvioulsy becasue they are homophobic. If someone voted against subsidized lunches it's obviously becasue they are nutritionphobic. I mean...there couldn't be other circumstances at all? :fp: Such as party lines...such as they don't agree with the way a bill was written...such as economic ramifications, etc. I mean, we all recognize the economic ramifications same sex marriage has correct? Couldn't possibly be that's why he voted against it? Hmm...
There are also politicians that voted against subsidized lunches in public schools? Are they nutritionphobic?
I'd actually call them scumbags
The same description would apply to lawmakers who want to force raped women to carry the resulting babies to term, in my opinion.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
There are also politicians that voted against subsidized lunches in public schools? Are they nutritionphobic?
I'd actually call them scumbags
As you know and I'm sure would concede there are multiple factors that go into every political decision and that's all I'm getting at. The largest being money. Without researching I'll just make up an example using the lunch issue. WHy would a politician vote for this if it meant his constituants may have their taxes go up? Sure looks good while he's doing it, but come election time all anyone will hear and remember is "Joe Blow" raised taxes. This stuff is not uncommon from both parties at all.
There are also politicians that voted against subsidized lunches in public schools? Are they nutritionphobic?
I'd actually call them scumbags
As you know and I'm sure would concede there are multiple factors that go into every political decision and that's all I'm getting at. The largest being money. Without researching I'll just make up an example using the lunch issue. WHy would a politician vote for this if it meant his constituants may have their taxes go up? Sure looks good while he's doing it, but come election time all anyone will hear and remember is "Joe Blow" raised taxes. This stuff is not uncommon from both parties at all.
I get what you are saying, I'm just referring to that specific scenario. And to answer that spcific question, because it's humane and we are not a developing country.
I get what you are saying, I'm just referring to that specific scenario. And to answer that spcific question, because it's humane and we are not a developing country.
I couldn't agree with you more but sometimes reality just blows.
What are we to think of this selection? He's not a graduate of Columbia University. He's not a graduate of Harvard. He wasn't selected as the President of the Harvard Law Review. He didn't get a special free quota scholarship ride to any prestigious university and, instead, had to work his way through Miami University of Ohio. For God's sake the man drove the Oscar Mayer Wiener Truck one summer and waited tables another!
One morning when Paul Ryan was sixteen years old he went in to wake his father up and found him dead of a heart attack. He didn't write two books about that experience. Instead, he assumed the role of adult at an early age, never having the luxury to pursue youthful drug use and the art of socialist revolution.
Instead, Paul Ryan and his mother took his grandmother, suffering from Alzheimers, into the household and served as the primary care provider for his grandma. His grandma wasn't the Vice President of the Bank of Hawaii so she could offer nothing in return, except the element of "need".
Once Paul Ryan got his BA in Economics from Miami University of Ohio he was hired as a staff economist in Wisconsin Senator Kastin's office. The job must have not paid well because young Ryan moonlighted as a waiter and fitness trainer. No one offered him a "token honor" position at the University of Chicago and a $200,000 dollar a year salary.
When a still young Paul Ryan returned to Wisconsin to run for Congress he didn't demonize his opponent and dig up dirt to shovel against him. He waited until the standing Congressman vacated the office before seeking the office. In Janesville, Wisconsin they don't have a big political machine to promote you, to criminalize your opponent; instead Paul Ryan had to go door to door and sit at kitchen tables and listen to his future constituents.
After getting elected to Congress Paul Ryan didn't triumphantly march into Washington, buy himself a Georgetown townhouse and proceed over to K Street to rub elbows with lobbyists. He bunked in his Congressional office and used the house gym for showers and a fresh change of clothes.
Paul Ryan then married and took his bride back to Janesville. He lives on the same street he lived on as a kid and shares the neighborhood with eight other members of the Ryan clan. He hunts with the local Janesville hunt club and attends PTA meetings and other civic functions.
For those who can't make those public functions, Paul Ryan bought an old bread truck, converted it into a "mobile constituent office" and drives around to meet with those who need his help and attention.
No, I don't know if we can vote for a guy like this. He doesn't have a regal pedigree; he's Irish for God's sake! No one awarded him a Nobel Peace Prize two months after getting elected. No one threw flowers or got "chills down their leg" as a he took his seat in Congress.
What is most despicable about Paul Ryan is that he has had the nerve to write the House Budget for three years in a row. He's is brazen and heartless in advocating in that budget for a $5 trillion dollar reduction in federal spending over the next ten years! The House passed his budget three years in a row and three years in a row the Democratically controlled Senate has let it die in the upper house, without ever proposing a budget of their own. What is wrong with this guy? If Congress were to cut $5 trillion dollars from the budget where would the President get the money to give $500 million dollars to a bankrupt Solyndra? Or $200 million dollars for bankrupt Energy 1? Or $11 billion dollars to illegal aliens filing INIT, non-resident tax returns to claim $11 billion big ones in child tax credits, even for their children living in Mexico?
I don't know. Paul Ryan seems heartless to me. He keeps wanting to cut government waste, he keeps wanting to put a halt to those big GSA conventions in Vegas and, worse, he keeps trying to make people look at that $16.7 trillion dollar deficit! The guy's no fun at all!
Who wants a numbers cruncher? Who wants someone spoiling the party by showing folks the bill? Nothing will spoil a party quicker than sending the host the bill before the party's over.
There are also politicians that voted against subsidized lunches in public schools? Are they nutritionphobic?
I'd actually call them scumbags
As you know and I'm sure would concede there are multiple factors that go into every political decision and that's all I'm getting at. The largest being money. Without researching I'll just make up an example using the lunch issue. WHy would a politician vote for this if it meant his constituants may have their taxes go up? Sure looks good while he's doing it, but come election time all anyone will hear and remember is "Joe Blow" raised taxes. This stuff is not uncommon from both parties at all.
But how do you apply this to the topic at hand? Because all the hypotheticals mean nothing to me. Aside from voting against his principles on human and civil right in order to win an election or garner favor, what other motivations could there be in Ryan voting the way he did on gay rights issues? I don't see any. And I see no reason to think that he doesn't vote this way and align with those who also do because he is personally against gay rights.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
what other motivations could there be in Ryan voting the way he did on gay rights issues? I don't see any. And I see no reason to think that he doesn't vote this way and align with those who also do because he is personally against gay rights.
Well the first one concerns the cost of insurance. If all of a sudden gay marriage is allowed those partners are now allowed to go on their spouses health insurance...a pretty hot topic in this country right now and a costly one. When Insurance companies spend more money they now bill more money. When they bill more money the employer and employees pay more money. A good portion of the people now facing the prospect of paying more money are not of that lifestyle so their feelings are "why should I pay more money". Comes down to simple econimics. I won't even go into spousal financial rights if one of them passes away ie. Social Security, Vteran Benefits, etc. There's a lot more that go into these decisions than a politician being a "homophobe". Kind of like in this country when parent's kids leave the school systems and move on to college...why then would they vote for any cost increases for the school budget? No benefit for them to pay higher taxes. They want school budget decreases. Overall does that benefit? Probably not. Does it benefit them...absolutley via lower taxes.
what other motivations could there be in Ryan voting the way he did on gay rights issues? I don't see any. And I see no reason to think that he doesn't vote this way and align with those who also do because he is personally against gay rights.
Well the first one concerns the cost of insurance. If all of a sudden gay marriage is allowed those partners are now allowed to go on their spouses health insurance...a pretty hot topic in this country right now and a costly one. When Insurance companies spend more money they now bill more money. When they bill more money the employer and employees pay more money. A good portion of the people now facing the prospect of paying more money are not of that lifestyle so their feelings are "why should I pay more money". Comes down to simple econimics. I won't even go into spousal financial rights if one of them passes away ie. Social Security, Vteran Benefits, etc. There's a lot more that go into these decisions than a politician being a "homophobe". Kind of like in this country when parent's kids leave the school systems and move on to college...why then would they vote for any cost increases for the school budget? No benefit for them to pay higher taxes. They want school budget decreases. Overall does that benefit? Probably not. Does it benefit them...absolutley via lower taxes.
I don't think for a millisecond that any of the things you just mentioned have anything whatsoever to do with why he votes the way he does, but if they did, then that would make him an even bigger scumbucket that I think he already is.
I don't even want to get into this conversation too much with you DS, because I know I'm going to be meeting you in Missoula, and I don't want us to argue so much that it's weird - I want to get drunk with a clean slate!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't think for a millisecond that any of the things you just mentioned have anything whatsoever to do with why he votes the way he does, but if they did, then that would make him an even bigger scumbucket that I think he already is.
I don't even want to get into this conversation too much with you DS, because I know I'm going to be meeting you in Missoula, and I don't want us to argue so much that it's weird - I want to get drunk with a clean slate!
If you really don't think things like that are considered before every vote in this country then there's nothing more to discuss. That's the way this country is cut and dried. It always comes down to money and votes for the politicians. Why do you think politicians have advisors if they were only voting with their personal feelings? Why are lobbyist groups so strong?
I don't think for a millisecond that any of the things you just mentioned have anything whatsoever to do with why he votes the way he does, but if they did, then that would make him an even bigger scumbucket that I think he already is.
I don't even want to get into this conversation too much with you DS, because I know I'm going to be meeting you in Missoula, and I don't want us to argue so much that it's weird - I want to get drunk with a clean slate!
If you really don't think things like that are considered before every vote in this country then there's nothing more to discuss. That's the way this country is cut and dried. It always comes down to money and votes for the politicians. Why do you think politicians have advisors if they were only voting with their personal feelings? Why are lobbyist groups so strong?
I know how things work, and I think you realize that I didn't say politicians only vote with their personal feelings; if that's really what you got from me, then you're right, there really is nothing to discuss. I don't think that these votes in particular came down to that AT ALL. I'm not sure... are you trying to say that Ryan is pro-gay rights but votes otherwise??
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I know how things work, and I think you realize that I didn't say politicians only vote with their personal feelings; if that's really what you got from me, then you're right, there really is nothing to discuss. I don't think that these votes in particular came down to that AT ALL. I'm not sure... are you trying to say that Ryan is pro-gay rights but votes otherwise??
I'm saying Ryan is pro-whatever keeps him elected and his constituants happy and that goes for all politicians. DO you really think if money weren't involved a politician would give a shit who marries who? Now factor in if the people he represents as voters don't want it...well he better vote that way if he wants to keep his job. Or better yet, if the major business in his area he represents nudges him and says "hey, if this passes it will cost us billions of dollars", you don;t think that alters his voting process?
I know how things work, and I think you realize that I didn't say politicians only vote with their personal feelings; if that's really what you got from me, then you're right, there really is nothing to discuss. I don't think that these votes in particular came down to that AT ALL. I'm not sure... are you trying to say that Ryan is pro-gay rights but votes otherwise??
I'm saying Ryan is pro-whatever keeps him elected and his constituants happy and that goes for all politicians. DO you really think if money weren't involved a politician would give a shit who marries who? Now factor in if the people he represents as voters don't want it...well he better vote that way if he wants to keep his job. Or better yet, if the major business in his area he represents nudges him and says "hey, if this passes it will cost us billions of dollars", you don;t think that alters his voting process?
Yeah, I do think that many of the religious Republicans give a shit about who marries who. I think that many of them feel very deeply about their bigotry, actually. Now, that doesn't mean that they might not sell their own children if it meant winning an election of course - I'm not naive; I know that the thing that means MOST of 99% of politicians is power - but I still think that their personal feelings are involved here, and that's very often why they align themselves with the people and voters that they do.
I do NOT think that his voting on this issue has anything to do with economics. It has to do with his and his voters' bigotry towards gay people.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I know how things work, and I think you realize that I didn't say politicians only vote with their personal feelings; if that's really what you got from me, then you're right, there really is nothing to discuss. I don't think that these votes in particular came down to that AT ALL. I'm not sure... are you trying to say that Ryan is pro-gay rights but votes otherwise??
I'm saying Ryan is pro-whatever keeps him elected and his constituants happy and that goes for all politicians. DO you really think if money weren't involved a politician would give a shit who marries who? Now factor in if the people he represents as voters don't want it...well he better vote that way if he wants to keep his job. Or better yet, if the major business in his area he represents nudges him and says "hey, if this passes it will cost us billions of dollars", you don;t think that alters his voting process?
Yeah, I do think that many of the religious Republicans give a shit about who marries who. I think that many of them feel very deeply about their bigotry, actually. Now, that doesn't mean that they might not sell their own children if it meant winning an election of course - I'm not naive; I know that the thing that means MOST of 99% of politicians is power - but I still think that their personal feelings are involved here, and that's very often why they align themselves with the people and voters that they do.
I do NOT think that his voting on this issue has anything to do with economics. It has to do with his and his voters' bigotry towards gay people.
I admire how you think this is just a Republican concept?! If the Republican public as a whole wanted to allow marrying farm animal the politicinas would vote that way. Democrats too!
I'm saying Ryan is pro-whatever keeps him elected and his constituants happy and that goes for all politicians. DO you really think if money weren't involved a politician would give a shit who marries who? Now factor in if the people he represents as voters don't want it...well he better vote that way if he wants to keep his job. Or better yet, if the major business in his area he represents nudges him and says "hey, if this passes it will cost us billions of dollars", you don;t think that alters his voting process?
Yeah, I do think that many of the religious Republicans give a shit about who marries who. I think that many of them feel very deeply about their bigotry, actually. Now, that doesn't mean that they might not sell their own children if it meant winning an election of course - I'm not naive; I know that the thing that means MOST of 99% of politicians is power - but I still think that their personal feelings are involved here, and that's very often why they align themselves with the people and voters that they do.
I do NOT think that his voting on this issue has anything to do with economics. It has to do with his and his voters' bigotry towards gay people.
I admire how you think this is just a Republican concept?!
I do not. Where's you get that idea??? I mentioned the RELIGIOUS republicans - religion and politics is pretty fucking republican. But I said 99% of politicians want power over any of their values. I meant ALL politicians. But I like how you jumped to that conclusion.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I do not. Where's you get that idea??? I mentioned the RELIGIOUS republicans - religion and politics is pretty fucking republican. But I said 99% of politicians want power over any of their values. I meant ALL politicians. But I like how you jumped to that conclusion.
There are religious democrtas as well. It's just the way it's viewed. And you did also only mention Republicans in your post.
I do not. Where's you get that idea??? I mentioned the RELIGIOUS republicans - religion and politics is pretty fucking republican. But I said 99% of politicians want power over any of their values. I meant ALL politicians. But I like how you jumped to that conclusion.
There are religious democrtas as well. It's just the way it's viewed. And you did also only mention Republicans in your post.
Of course there are religious democrats... but not ones who bring their religion into politics the way Republicans do.
I also mentioned "99% of politicians." That seems really clear to me.
Anyway, made my point and I stand by it. I am seriously in the pissiest mood I've been in for a very long time today!! I can't handle A Moving Train this afternoon! :lolno:
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Of course there are religious democrats... but not ones who bring their religion into politics the way Republicans do.
You sure about that? And are you sure it's not politicians voting for what their constituents want? :corn:
Generally, yeah I'm sure about that. There are exceptions to every rule - that goes without saying for everything I ever say. And yeah, OBVIOUSLY it's often about them voting for what they at least think their constituents want, hence the fact that they are seeking power, i.e. trying to win. That does not in any way, shape or form change what I'm saying. I am NOT going into the fine points of how and why being anti-gay can help people get votes. That does not change what I'm saying about Ryan at all.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Of course there are religious democrats... but not ones who bring their religion into politics the way Republicans do.
You sure about that? And are you sure it's not politicians voting for what their constituents want? :corn:
Generally, yeah I'm sure about that. There are exceptions to every rule - that goes without saying for everything I ever say. And yeah, OBVIOUSLY it's often about them voting for what they at least think their constituents want, hence the fact that they are seeking power, i.e. trying to win. That does not in any way, shape or form change what I'm saying. I am NOT going into the fine points of how and why being anti-gay can help people get votes. That does not change what I'm saying about Ryan at all.
This issue are far greater than being "anti-gay". :fp: Just becasue a politician votes a certain way may or may not be their own personal views. I mean Obama when campaigning in 2008 said this...and it's a quote... "Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.... I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected." Obama announced that he had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, "Will you support legislation ...to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption," Obama gave an unqualified "Yes."
You know what happened in 2011? On November 18th, as the country was celebrating Thanksgiving, President Obama signed a law, allowing Americans to kill and eat horses.
Now did his personal views change in 3 years...I doubt it. His political views certainly changed however. I'm sure there was a political benefit to how he campaigned with this issue, and I'm sure there was a poltical benefit to flip flopping on the issue as well. What I'm getting at is calling someone anti-gay for how they vote on something is not fair at all.
You sure about that? And are you sure it's not politicians voting for what their constituents want? :corn:
Generally, yeah I'm sure about that. There are exceptions to every rule - that goes without saying for everything I ever say. And yeah, OBVIOUSLY it's often about them voting for what they at least think their constituents want, hence the fact that they are seeking power, i.e. trying to win. That does not in any way, shape or form change what I'm saying. I am NOT going into the fine points of how and why being anti-gay can help people get votes. That does not change what I'm saying about Ryan at all.
This issue are far greater than being "anti-gay". :fp: Just becasue a politician votes a certain way may or may not be their own personal views. I mean Obama when campaigning in 2008 said this...and it's a quote... "Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.... I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected." Obama announced that he had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, "Will you support legislation ...to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption," Obama gave an unqualified "Yes."
You know what happened in 2011? On November 18th, as the country was celebrating Thanksgiving, President Obama signed a law, allowing Americans to kill and eat horses.
Now did his personal views change in 3 years...I doubt it. His political views certainly changed however. I'm sure there was a political benefit to how he campaigned with this issue, and I'm sure there was a poltical benefit to flip flopping on the issue as well. What I'm getting at is calling someone anti-gay for how they vote on something is not fair at all.
I only skimmed this - too pissy to care anymore, sorry - but anyway, I think Ryan is anti gay-rights. Obviously. But even if he weren't, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you defending Ryan? If so, if he were pro gay rights and voting the opposite, that would make him worse. So are you arguing the point of politicians often not voting just on their personal feelings? If that's what you're doing, I agreed with you a bunch of posts back, but disagreed that Ryan's voting record on gay rights is based on economics.
So there you have it.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I only skimmed this - too pissy to care anymore, sorry - but anyway, I think Ryan is anti gay-rights. Obviously. But even if he weren't, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you defending Ryan? If so, if he were pro gay rights and voting the opposite, that would make him worse. So are you arguing the point of politicians often not voting just on their personal feelings? If that's what you're doing, I agreed with you a bunch of posts back, but disagreed that Ryan's voting record on gay rights is based on economics.
So there you have it.
What I'm saying is there are many many many factors that go into every vote. To say someone is anti-gay...homophobic...there are a lot more factors than that involved.
I only skimmed this - too pissy to care anymore, sorry - but anyway, I think Ryan is anti gay-rights. Obviously. But even if he weren't, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you defending Ryan? If so, if he were pro gay rights and voting the opposite, that would make him worse. So are you arguing the point of politicians often not voting just on their personal feelings? If that's what you're doing, I agreed with you a bunch of posts back, but disagreed that Ryan's voting record on gay rights is based on economics.
So there you have it.
What I'm saying is there are many many many factors that go into every vote. To say someone is anti-gay...homophobic...there are a lot more factors than that involved.
WOW !!! I have to agree with that, I would bet most or all politions do not vote from the heart but rather from the wallet or to buy votes.
What I'm saying is there are many many many factors that go into every vote. To say someone is anti-gay...homophobic...there are a lot more factors than that involved.
sooo ... you are saying that just because someone votes against a gay rights measure doesn't make him anti-gay!? ... and by your logic if i changed a business to whites only because my customers wanted it - it doesn't make me a racist? ...
sooo then basically you are saying money means everything or that essentially people only think of what's best for them and will sell anyone out that doesn't benefit them?
You sure about that? And are you sure it's not politicians voting for what their constituents want? :corn:
Generally, yeah I'm sure about that. There are exceptions to every rule - that goes without saying for everything I ever say. And yeah, OBVIOUSLY it's often about them voting for what they at least think their constituents want, hence the fact that they are seeking power, i.e. trying to win. That does not in any way, shape or form change what I'm saying. I am NOT going into the fine points of how and why being anti-gay can help people get votes. That does not change what I'm saying about Ryan at all.
This issue are far greater than being "anti-gay". :fp: Just becasue a politician votes a certain way may or may not be their own personal views. I mean Obama when campaigning in 2008 said this...and it's a quote... "Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.... I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected." Obama announced that he had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, "Will you support legislation ...to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption," Obama gave an unqualified "Yes."
You know what happened in 2011? On November 18th, as the country was celebrating Thanksgiving, President Obama signed a law, allowing Americans to kill and eat horses.
Now did his personal views change in 3 years...I doubt it. His political views certainly changed however. I'm sure there was a political benefit to how he campaigned with this issue, and I'm sure there was a poltical benefit to flip flopping on the issue as well. What I'm getting at is calling someone anti-gay for how they vote on something is not fair at all.
:thumbup:
I didn't skim this post and that was a crappy thing to do, President Obama :wtf:
Comments
No politician votes against all those pieces of legislation unless they personally feel that gays shouldn't have those rights. Obviously there are other considerations as well, but that doesn't negate the first fact... Unless you're suggesting the alternative that Ryan actually does believe in gay rights and votes against them anyway, thus voting against human and civil rights, just to secure votes or get into someone's back pocket... which would be equally as heinous. I don't think that's the case though. Obviously there are other considerations as well.
I just break all logic down to it's simplest form. There are also politicians that voted against subsidized lunches in public schools? Are they nutritionphobic?
Really?
I'd actually call them scumbags
The same description would apply to lawmakers who want to force raped women to carry the resulting babies to term, in my opinion.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Agreed
As you know and I'm sure would concede there are multiple factors that go into every political decision and that's all I'm getting at. The largest being money. Without researching I'll just make up an example using the lunch issue. WHy would a politician vote for this if it meant his constituants may have their taxes go up? Sure looks good while he's doing it, but come election time all anyone will hear and remember is "Joe Blow" raised taxes. This stuff is not uncommon from both parties at all.
I get what you are saying, I'm just referring to that specific scenario. And to answer that spcific question, because it's humane and we are not a developing country.
I couldn't agree with you more but sometimes reality just blows.
What are we to think of this selection? He's not a graduate of Columbia University. He's not a graduate of Harvard. He wasn't selected as the President of the Harvard Law Review. He didn't get a special free quota scholarship ride to any prestigious university and, instead, had to work his way through Miami University of Ohio. For God's sake the man drove the Oscar Mayer Wiener Truck one summer and waited tables another!
One morning when Paul Ryan was sixteen years old he went in to wake his father up and found him dead of a heart attack. He didn't write two books about that experience. Instead, he assumed the role of adult at an early age, never having the luxury to pursue youthful drug use and the art of socialist revolution.
Instead, Paul Ryan and his mother took his grandmother, suffering from Alzheimers, into the household and served as the primary care provider for his grandma. His grandma wasn't the Vice President of the Bank of Hawaii so she could offer nothing in return, except the element of "need".
Once Paul Ryan got his BA in Economics from Miami University of Ohio he was hired as a staff economist in Wisconsin Senator Kastin's office. The job must have not paid well because young Ryan moonlighted as a waiter and fitness trainer. No one offered him a "token honor" position at the University of Chicago and a $200,000 dollar a year salary.
When a still young Paul Ryan returned to Wisconsin to run for Congress he didn't demonize his opponent and dig up dirt to shovel against him. He waited until the standing Congressman vacated the office before seeking the office. In Janesville, Wisconsin they don't have a big political machine to promote you, to criminalize your opponent; instead Paul Ryan had to go door to door and sit at kitchen tables and listen to his future constituents.
After getting elected to Congress Paul Ryan didn't triumphantly march into Washington, buy himself a Georgetown townhouse and proceed over to K Street to rub elbows with lobbyists. He bunked in his Congressional office and used the house gym for showers and a fresh change of clothes.
Paul Ryan then married and took his bride back to Janesville. He lives on the same street he lived on as a kid and shares the neighborhood with eight other members of the Ryan clan. He hunts with the local Janesville hunt club and attends PTA meetings and other civic functions.
For those who can't make those public functions, Paul Ryan bought an old bread truck, converted it into a "mobile constituent office" and drives around to meet with those who need his help and attention.
No, I don't know if we can vote for a guy like this. He doesn't have a regal pedigree; he's Irish for God's sake! No one awarded him a Nobel Peace Prize two months after getting elected. No one threw flowers or got "chills down their leg" as a he took his seat in Congress.
What is most despicable about Paul Ryan is that he has had the nerve to write the House Budget for three years in a row. He's is brazen and heartless in advocating in that budget for a $5 trillion dollar reduction in federal spending over the next ten years! The House passed his budget three years in a row and three years in a row the Democratically controlled Senate has let it die in the upper house, without ever proposing a budget of their own. What is wrong with this guy? If Congress were to cut $5 trillion dollars from the budget where would the President get the money to give $500 million dollars to a bankrupt Solyndra? Or $200 million dollars for bankrupt Energy 1? Or $11 billion dollars to illegal aliens filing INIT, non-resident tax returns to claim $11 billion big ones in child tax credits, even for their children living in Mexico?
I don't know. Paul Ryan seems heartless to me. He keeps wanting to cut government waste, he keeps wanting to put a halt to those big GSA conventions in Vegas and, worse, he keeps trying to make people look at that $16.7 trillion dollar deficit! The guy's no fun at all!
Who wants a numbers cruncher? Who wants someone spoiling the party by showing folks the bill? Nothing will spoil a party quicker than sending the host the bill before the party's over.
Party Hearty folks! At least until November.
Well the first one concerns the cost of insurance. If all of a sudden gay marriage is allowed those partners are now allowed to go on their spouses health insurance...a pretty hot topic in this country right now and a costly one. When Insurance companies spend more money they now bill more money. When they bill more money the employer and employees pay more money. A good portion of the people now facing the prospect of paying more money are not of that lifestyle so their feelings are "why should I pay more money". Comes down to simple econimics. I won't even go into spousal financial rights if one of them passes away ie. Social Security, Vteran Benefits, etc. There's a lot more that go into these decisions than a politician being a "homophobe". Kind of like in this country when parent's kids leave the school systems and move on to college...why then would they vote for any cost increases for the school budget? No benefit for them to pay higher taxes. They want school budget decreases. Overall does that benefit? Probably not. Does it benefit them...absolutley via lower taxes.
I don't even want to get into this conversation too much with you DS, because I know I'm going to be meeting you in Missoula, and I don't want us to argue so much that it's weird - I want to get drunk with a clean slate!
If you really don't think things like that are considered before every vote in this country then there's nothing more to discuss. That's the way this country is cut and dried. It always comes down to money and votes for the politicians. Why do you think politicians have advisors if they were only voting with their personal feelings?
I'm saying Ryan is pro-whatever keeps him elected and his constituants happy and that goes for all politicians. DO you really think if money weren't involved a politician would give a shit who marries who?
I do NOT think that his voting on this issue has anything to do with economics. It has to do with his and his voters' bigotry towards gay people.
I admire how you think this is just a Republican concept?!
There are religious democrtas as well. It's just the way it's viewed. And you did also only mention Republicans in your post.
I also mentioned "99% of politicians." That seems really clear to me.
Anyway, made my point and I stand by it. I am seriously in the pissiest mood I've been in for a very long time today!! I can't handle A Moving Train this afternoon! :lolno:
You sure about that? And are you sure it's not politicinas voting for what their constituants want? :corn:
This issue are far greater than being "anti-gay". :fp: Just becasue a politician votes a certain way may or may not be their own personal views. I mean Obama when campaigning in 2008 said this...and it's a quote... "Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.... I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected." Obama announced that he had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, "Will you support legislation ...to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption," Obama gave an unqualified "Yes."
You know what happened in 2011? On November 18th, as the country was celebrating Thanksgiving, President Obama signed a law, allowing Americans to kill and eat horses.
Now did his personal views change in 3 years...I doubt it. His political views certainly changed however. I'm sure there was a political benefit to how he campaigned with this issue, and I'm sure there was a poltical benefit to flip flopping on the issue as well. What I'm getting at is calling someone anti-gay for how they vote on something is not fair at all.
So there you have it.
What I'm saying is there are many many many factors that go into every vote. To say someone is anti-gay...homophobic...there are a lot more factors than that involved.
WOW !!! I have to agree with that, I would bet most or all politions do not vote from the heart but rather from the wallet or to buy votes.
Godfather.
sooo ... you are saying that just because someone votes against a gay rights measure doesn't make him anti-gay!? ... and by your logic if i changed a business to whites only because my customers wanted it - it doesn't make me a racist? ...
sooo then basically you are saying money means everything or that essentially people only think of what's best for them and will sell anyone out that doesn't benefit them?
:thumbup:
I didn't skim this post and that was a crappy thing to do, President Obama :wtf: