Are Republicans holding the US back?

[Romano-Germanic Empire]

How can the GOP be holding America back if they haven't been in power for a decade or so?

Please tell me you aren't being serious. Either you are joking, you are completely misinformed, this is a typo, or you have been living under a rock for the past 10 years.

[Alyekra]

Well, they're trying. I wish they were doing a better job of it, though.

Not all progress is good.

[Dilange]

Yes.

[The Black Forrest]

Not all progress is good.

Such as?

[Dilange]

Not all progress is good.

Such as?

The progression of discrimination laws in the South after Reconstruction failed.

[The Black Forrest]

Such as?

The progression of discrimination laws in the South after Reconstruction failed.

Now now. Let him answer. Sometimes the people who say that offer examples of which progress is bad.....

[Umbradge]

Yes and no. I agree with fiscal conservatism but as more changes are introduced that the church cannot approve of, republican ratings go down. Besides, now the GOP is a bunch of redundant pushovers, it's time to make it a third party. Pundit time: libertarianism promotes capitalism an anarcho capitalism, as well as many schools of thought for others to fall into, as well as having a government small enough to not care/ enforce (social issue) laws. Because no-one outside of government wants to deliberately wreck the economy, it prospers by allowing innovation. And if there is a small enough government, no-one will care but you whether or not you're gay, have abortions or own guns. The government would not ban or endorse any social issues. I. A libertarian society you could voluntarily leave it and join a more communistic social hierarchy where the opposite is impossible in communism or statism.

[Dilange]

The progression of discrimination laws in the South after Reconstruction failed.

Now now. Let him answer. Sometimes the people who say that offer examples of which progress is bad.....

Why I can name plenty of occassions where progress has been bad without breaking Godwin's Law?

[The Steam Century]

Ah, I though the US was mostly conservatives anyway.

[Albion Rhodesia]

[quote="Latonos";p="13094151"]In a (slowly) modernising world,
Where Homosexuals can join in Marriage,
Where Mothers can choose to be Mothers,
Where Socialism is slowly becoming more popular, and people are slowly becoming tolerant of one another,
a country far away on distant shores is being held back by a group of child like adults where they refuse to just accept the future for what it is, for what it means...
Instead, they continue to argue against change, against the future.
Oh, they aren't alone in this conflict, but that will wait until another day.



In my ways, the Republican Party may be the last bastion of morality in the Western World!

First off, I cannot for the life of me, understand why any sensible or moral individual would support gay marriage. After all, marriage has never been a right in any sense of the word, but instead is a religious commitment between a man, woman and their their God(insert religion of choice here).

Secondly, I don't in any sense see where socialism is becoming more popular, in fact in most places socialism is on the decline, with the failure of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Iron Curtain, most sensible people have seen the error of Socialist and Communist political thought, and pretty much with the exception of diehards and idealistic youth, no one actually supports socialism as a viable alternative in the modern world.

Also, I would question whether society is becoming more tolerant, or simply due to a decline in public and private morals, that we simply have become more permissive.

[Neutraligon]

In a (slowly) modernising world,
Where Homosexuals can join in Marriage,
Where Mothers can choose to be Mothers,
Where Socialism is slowly becoming more popular, and people are slowly becoming tolerant of one another,
a country far away on distant shores is being held back by a group of child like adults where they refuse to just accept the future for what it is, for what it means...
Instead, they continue to argue against change, against the future.
Oh, they aren't alone in this conflict, but that will wait until another day.

In my ways, the Republican Party may be the last bastion of morality in the Western World!

First off, I cannot for the life of me, understand why any sensible or moral individual would support gay marriage. After all, marriage has never been a right in any sense of the word, but instead is a religious commitment between a man, woman and their their God(insert religion of choice here).

Secondly, I don't in any sense see where socialism is becoming more popular, in fact in most places socialism is on the decline, with the failure of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Iron Curtain, most sensible people have seen the error of Socialist and Communist political thought, and pretty much with the exception of diehards and idealistic youth, no one actually supports socialism as a viable alternative in the modern world.

Also, I would question whether society is becoming more tolerant, or simply due to a decline in public and private morals, that we simply have become more permissive.

Marriage is a right according to the Supreme Court of the US. More than that it is a LEGAL term entailing legal benefits. For the second source.

[Urmanian]

First off, I cannot for the life of me, understand why any sensible or moral individual would support gay marriage.

Because it is sensible and moral to oppose the treatment of people as second-class citizens based on their sexual orientation and support equality under law for all.

After all, marriage has never been a right in any sense of the word, but instead is a religious commitment between a man, woman and their their God(insert religion of choice here).

If that would be the case then there would be no legal definition and regulation of marriage and gay marriage would be less of an issue. However, marriage /IS/ a legal concept, recognized and regulated by the state, that issues certain rights and protections to married couples; something that gay lovers are unjustly deprived of, and it is certainly a right as far as law is concerned.

[Unchecked Expansion]

First off, I cannot for the life of me, understand why any sensible or moral individual would support gay marriage. After all, marriage has never been a right in any sense of the word, but instead is a religious commitment between a man, woman and their their God(insert religion of choice here).


Also, I would question whether society is becoming more tolerant, or simply due to a decline in public and private morals, that we simply have become more permissive.

Marriage has been a right in America for a long time now. Furthermore, as it has never been exclusive to one religion, insisting on defining it based on one religions views is moronic.
As for 'declining morals', we've heard that wail since Socrates.

[Wamitoria]

Ah, I though the US was mostly conservatives anyway.

(Image)

Keep in mind that this was the most inaccurate compass map ever.

[Alien Space Bats]

After all, marriage has never been a right in any sense of the word, but instead is a religious commitment between a man, woman and their their God(insert religion of choice here).

Explain why people who don't believe in any kind of God cannot make a commitment to one another that meets what I would call the Turing Test for marriage (IOW, if you ask them about anything except their religious beliefs and practices, they will answer in a fashion that appears identical to the way in which a religious couple would answer). Is marriage impossible without God?

Also, I would question whether society is becoming more tolerant, or simply due to a decline in public and private morals, that we simply have become more permissive.

Is morality about who and how you screw... or how badly you screw people over?

IOW, who is more immoral: A gay couple who contribute in a positive way to their community, or a straight couple who use their wealth and power to reduce their neighbors to virtual serfdom?

[TomKirk]

After all, marriage has never been a right in any sense of the word, but instead is a religious commitment between a man, woman and their their God(insert religion of choice here).

Marriage has never been a religious commitment in any sense of the word, but instead is a legal institution, which can be and often has been entered into without any God involved. If you want a particular word for the religious ceremony as opposed to the legal commitment, the ceremony is called a "wedding" and the spiritual state it purports to create is called "matrimony"; stop trying to hijack the word "marriage" which has always belonged to the law.

[Terraius]

Yeah we should just become a one party state like China or North Korea. I heard they're doing pretty well.

When your country is almost single-handedly the reason poverty in the world has been reducing at amazing levels then yeah I guess pretty damn well. (China.)

That's not to give them a free pass by any means, but at least they don't have politicians out to actively fucking kill large portions of their population via starvation.

REALLY?! Are you seriously trying to pass this off? Not only is their drinking water contaminated to hell, their food low quality, over 200 million people in China are starving with no assistance.

Lets not forgot, oh, I dont know, they still use SLAVE LABOR to maintain their economy?!

Seriouslly Im all for bashing on the US for its stupid inefficiencies but were crossing a whole new threshhold of retarded when we try to raise a country that has complete and total disregard for human life and civil rights on a high pedestal in comparison to the rest of the civilized world

[Sociobiology]

Dafuq?!

I think people try to edit out Bush.

and the house. and congress.

[Terraius]

How can the GOP be holding America back if they haven't been in power for a decade or so?

Please tell me you aren't being serious. Either you are joking, you are completely misinformed, this is a typo, or you have been living under a rock for the past 10 years.

Technically speaking he is correct, as the GOP has not had plurality in congress or the presidency, although more accurately that would be about 5-6 years as 10 years ago Bush was president.

Generally speaking I dont count the supreme court, although even if we did 10 years ago it was dead even with 3 conservatives, 3 liberals, and 2-3 that tended to swing vote given their track record.

[Sociobiology]

After all, marriage has never been a right in any sense of the word, but instead is a religious commitment between a man, woman and their their God(insert religion of choice here).

Marriage has never been a religious commitment in any sense of the word, but instead is a legal institution, which can be and often has been entered into without any God involved. If you want a particular word for the religious ceremony as opposed to the legal commitment, the ceremony is called a "wedding" and the spiritual state it purports to create is called "matrimony"; stop trying to hijack the word "marriage" which has always belonged to the law.

Actually marriage is a social institution that predates laws and quite possibly religion.
ALL societies have marriage, although the details vary.
the legal state of marriage was created to justify legal necessities, like married people having kin rights with their partner, and thus I see no reason do deny it to any pair of consenting adults.

[Calenhardon]

Please tell me you aren't being serious. Either you are joking, you are completely misinformed, this is a typo, or you have been living under a rock for the past 10 years.

Technically speaking he is correct, as the GOP has not had plurality in congress or the presidency, although more accurately that would be about 5-6 years as 10 years ago Bush was president.

Generally speaking I dont count the supreme court, although even if we did 10 years ago it was dead even with 3 conservatives, 3 liberals, and 2-3 that tended to swing vote given their track record.

Technically speaking he is wrong, actually. Republicans held the Senate until 2006, 7 years ago. Republicans held the White House until 2008, 5 years ago. Republicans retook and have held the House for the last two years. The notion that Republicans have been powerless for the past 10 years is clearly false. And that's before we factor in the Senate minority's use of the filibuster to obstruct Democrats.

[Democratic Republic of Sapientia]

In a (slowly) modernising world,
Where Homosexuals can join in Marriage,
Where Mothers can choose to be Mothers,
Where Socialism is slowly becoming more popular, and people are slowly becoming tolerant of one another,
a country far away on distant shores is being held back by a group of child like adults where they refuse to just accept the future for what it is, for what it means...
Instead, they continue to argue against change, against the future.
Oh, they aren't alone in this conflict, but that will wait until another day.



In my ways, the Republican Party may be the last bastion of morality in the Western World!

First off, I cannot for the life of me, understand why any sensible or moral individual would support gay marriage. After all, marriage has never been a right in any sense of the word, but instead is a religious commitment between a man, woman and their their God(insert religion of choice here).

Secondly, I don't in any sense see where socialism is becoming more popular, in fact in most places socialism is on the decline, with the failure of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Iron Curtain, most sensible people have seen the error of Socialist and Communist political thought, and pretty much with the exception of diehards and idealistic youth, no one actually supports socialism as a viable alternative in the modern world.

Also, I would question whether society is becoming more tolerant, or simply due to a decline in public and private morals, that we simply have become more permissive.

No, Marriage is political, it is a social contract in which both parties receive benefits. Spirituality can be applied to marriage but is not the governments job to do this. You are correct that communism is less common nowadays but very few Liberals advocate for communism or pure socialism, we more commonly argue for democracies with social programs, not for workers controlling the means of production.

[Scholencia]

No. The GOP has abandom slavery while the democrats were not willing to do it.

[Wamitoria]

No. The GOP has abandom slavery while the democrats were not willing to do it.

That was almost 155 years ago.

The Democrats back then were definitely holding back the US. The Republicans used to be a force for progress.

[Disserbia]

No. The GOP has abandom slavery while the democrats were not willing to do it.

That was almost 155 years ago.

The Democrats back then were definitely holding back the US. The Republicans used to be a force for progress.

They used to be a conservative anti-slavery party. I'm not sure if "force for progress" is entirely accurate.