Are Republicans holding the US back?

[Wallonochia]

I dont think its just the Republicants... I think its also the Democraps. It pretty much everyone. Both are set in their ways so much that it gets in the way of actually solving a problem.

Shit i dunno, wipe the slate clean and start with all new people....

But of course the backlash.

I think this South Park "douche and turd" false equivalence thing is somehow even worse than straight up support for the GOP. If it's a choice between the Cheese and Veggie Omelet MRE (I don't know if they even have those anymore and for those who've never had it, it was terrible) and a shot of strychnine for dinner one of these choices is clearly preferable.

This also applies to the "the truth is in the middle" schtick. A Cheese and Veggie Omelet MRE coated in strychnine isn't really acceptable either. Although this might be a bad example because strychnine could only improve the flavor.

[The Black Forrest]

If the government that governs closer to the people is best, why States, and not municipalities? Why not abolish government and have everyone self-govern?

Well, in an ideal world...

So never.

[Valentir]

They kinda of are but its not all their fault. They do have a lot of problems though and if they continue like this they will really hold the USA back.

[Konariona]

This is kinda vague.. are you talking right-wing in general or just Republicans?

[The Black Forrest]

This is kinda vague.. are you talking right-wing in general or just Republicans?

Basically the same.

Not too many left winger republicans any more.....

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

If Nebraskans support gay marriage, than I'll have to agree with you. But we won't, not now, not any time soon. Maybe someday, but that would have to be the distant future. But pushing people into allowing gay marriage is going to bring an unpleasant light to the topic. In violating the rights of the people of Nebraska you'll only cause widespread resentment against homosexuals. To force us to do anything is the worst possible way to do any kind of reform. Interventionist policies will only be your down fall. If the people of Nebraska will change, certainly it will be gradual.

[Divair]

If Nebraskans support gay marriage, than I'll have to agree with you. But we won't, not now, not any time soon. Maybe someday, but that would have to be the distant future. But pushing people into allowing gay marriage is going to bring an unpleasant light to the topic. In violating the rights of the people of Nebraska you'll only cause widespread resentment against homosexuals. To force us to do anything is the worst possible way to do any kind of reform. Interventionist policies will only be your down fall. If the people of Nebraska will change, certainly it will be gradual.

'Distant future' being 10 years from now.

[EnragedMaldivians]

If Nebraskans support gay marriage, than I'll have to agree with you. But we won't, not now, not any time soon. Maybe someday, but that would have to be the distant future. But pushing people into allowing gay marriage is going to bring an unpleasant light to the topic. In violating the rights of the people of Nebraska you'll only cause widespread resentment against homosexuals. To force us to do anything is the worst possible way to do any kind of reform. Interventionist policies will only be your down fall. If the people of Nebraska will change, certainly it will be gradual.

If it was forced upon Nebraskans by the federal government that they can't discriminate against homosexuals, I fail to see what exactly you're going to do about it. I mean, you can whine about it here and yell and moan, and play victim but there would be literally nothing, absolutely nothing you could do about it. Human rights take precedence over democracy.

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

If Nebraskans support gay marriage, than I'll have to agree with you. But we won't, not now, not any time soon. Maybe someday, but that would have to be the distant future. But pushing people into allowing gay marriage is going to bring an unpleasant light to the topic. In violating the rights of the people of Nebraska you'll only cause widespread resentment against homosexuals. To force us to do anything is the worst possible way to do any kind of reform. Interventionist policies will only be your down fall. If the people of Nebraska will change, certainly it will be gradual.

If it was forced upon Nebraskans by the federal government that they can't discriminate against homosexuals, I fail to see what exactly you're going to do about it. I mean, you can whine about it here and yell and moan, and play victim but there would be literally nothing, absolutely nothing you could do about it. Human rights take precedence over democracy.

Well, friend we shall fight you every step of the way. Some in the Supreme Court have tried to overrule the Articlr of our state constitution that protected marriage, but we simply said no to the agitators. If such a bill shall ever pass, it will make little difference, as we will defend Article I-29 until our last breath. I hope I shall never see the day when morality and ethics loses in our great state, but being 16 I fear I may one day see this. No matter, we'll be defiant until the bitter end.

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

If Nebraskans support gay marriage, than I'll have to agree with you. But we won't, not now, not any time soon. Maybe someday, but that would have to be the distant future. But pushing people into allowing gay marriage is going to bring an unpleasant light to the topic. In violating the rights of the people of Nebraska you'll only cause widespread resentment against homosexuals. To force us to do anything is the worst possible way to do any kind of reform. Interventionist policies will only be your down fall. If the people of Nebraska will change, certainly it will be gradual.

'Distant future' being 10 years from now.

Obviously you don't know Nebraska.

[Divair]

'Distant future' being 10 years from now.

Obviously you don't know Nebraska.

Obviously you don't know the power of progress. Understandable if you're under 50.

[Urmanian]

In violating the rights of the people of Nebraska you'll only cause widespread resentment against homosexuals.

I don't see how legalizing gay marriage would violate your rights in any form, or fashion.

Well, friend we shall fight you every step of the way. Some in the Supreme Court have tried to overrule the Articlr of our state constitution that protected marriage, but we simply said no to the agitators. If such a bill shall ever pass, it will make little difference, as we will defend Article I-29 until our last breath. I hope I shall never see the day when morality and ethics loses in our great state, but being 16 I fear I may one day see this. No matter, we'll be defiant until the bitter end.

who's willing to bet that even if the federal government does force homosexual marriage upon Nebraska there will be no palpable action beside some armchair rage and pickets by some fundie wingnuts

[Neutraligon]

Obviously you don't know Nebraska.

Obviously you don't know the power of progress. Understandable if you're under 50.

Hey, I'm under fifty and very much appreciate the power of progress. Apparently President Obama is going to be making remarks on same-sex marriage later today.

[Divair]

Obviously you don't know the power of progress. Understandable if you're under 50.

Hey, I'm under fifty and very much appreciate the power of progress.

So do I. I'm just saying that if you don't, it's understandable given that you didn't experience the last major revolution (rights for blacks).

[Neutraligon]

Hey, I'm under fifty and very much appreciate the power of progress.

So do I. I'm just saying that if you don't, it's understandable given that you didn't experience the last major revolution (rights for blacks).

True.

[EnragedMaldivians]

If it was forced upon Nebraskans by the federal government that they can't discriminate against homosexuals, I fail to see what exactly you're going to do about it. I mean, you can whine about it here and yell and moan, and play victim but there would be literally nothing, absolutely nothing you could do about it. Human rights take precedence over democracy.

Well, friend we shall fight you every step of the way. Some in the Supreme Court have tried to overrule the Articlr of our state constitution that protected marriage, but we simply said no to the agitators. If such a bill shall ever pass, it will make little difference, as we will defend Article I-29 until our last breath. I hope I shall never see the day when morality and ethics loses in our great state, but being 16 I fear I may one day see this. No matter, we'll be defiant until the bitter end.

As far as people who think being ethical entails discriminating against other people on the basis of their sexuality are concerned, I do very much hope their end is very bitter. The more you moan and groan the better in fact, 'my friend'.

[Terraius]

I agree that Tennessee is a rather shitty place overall for gays and it's not right. However, I think there is a fine line between a state that does not have gay marriage and a state that actively seeks to persecute them via the methods Tennessee has instated.

I think we need to take a step back; yes, everyone should be able to marry if they want. Im all for that. So long as my particular religion is not forced to marry gays, then Im all for allowing them to marry, secularly in a union and religiously if a specific church or denomination wants too.

However, I simply cannot get on board that not allowing gays to marry is treating them sub human. Thats a far stretch and offensive in many respects. Slavery was a mass display of subhuman treatment. Marriage? No.

Noone is harmed from gays getting married. Noone is harmed from gays not getting married. Ultimately its a rights dispute over a piece of paper which is far, far, far, FAR, from being considered an issue that treats people subhuman.

The measures in Tennessee, I would agree however, borderline oppressive and should be repealed immediately. But simply the state of not being allowed to marry, while pretentious and unjust, is certainly not akin to slavery. Lets be realistic here for a one minute.

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

In violating the rights of the people of Nebraska you'll only cause widespread resentment against homosexuals.

I don't see how legalizing gay marriage would violate your rights in any form, or fashion.

Well, friend we shall fight you every step of the way. Some in the Supreme Court have tried to overrule the Articlr of our state constitution that protected marriage, but we simply said no to the agitators. If such a bill shall ever pass, it will make little difference, as we will defend Article I-29 until our last breath. I hope I shall never see the day when morality and ethics loses in our great state, but being 16 I fear I may one day see this. No matter, we'll be defiant until the bitter end.

who's willing to bet that even if the federal government does force homosexual marriage upon Nebraska there will be no palpable action beside some armchair rage and pickets by some fundie wingnuts

No, people in DC have tried to tell us to change Article 29. We said no.

[Neutraligon]

I agree that Tennessee is a rather shitty place overall for gays and it's not right. However, I think there is a fine line between a state that does not have gay marriage and a state that actively seeks to persecute them via the methods Tennessee has instated.

I think we need to take a step back; yes, everyone should be able to marry if they want. Im all for that. So long as my particular religion is not forced to marry gays, then Im all for allowing them to marry, secularly in a union and religiously if a specific church or denomination wants too.

However, I simply cannot get on board that not allowing gays to marry is treating them sub human. Thats a far stretch and offensive in many respects. Slavery was a mass display of subhuman treatment. Marriage? No.

Noone is harmed from gays getting married. Noone is harmed from gays not getting married. Ultimately its a rights dispute over a piece of paper which is far, far, far, FAR, from being considered an issue that treats people subhuman.

The measures in Tennessee, I would agree however, borderline oppressive and should be repealed immediately. But simply the state of not being allowed to marry, while pretentious and unjust, is certainly not akin to slavery. Lets be realistic here for a one minute.

Actually people are harmed by not allowing gays to marry. Consider the fact that If I have a foreign partner of the same sex, I cannot have them become a US citizen as easily as if I had a foreign partner who was of the opposite sex. Similarly I cannot visit my dying partner in a hospital, nor make medical decisions for them. More than that, I and my child cannot benefit from my partner should they die. These are most definitely harmful.

[Neutraligon]

I don't see how legalizing gay marriage would violate your rights in any form, or fashion.

who's willing to bet that even if the federal government does force homosexual marriage upon Nebraska there will be no palpable action beside some armchair rage and pickets by some fundie wingnuts

No, people in DC have tried to tell us to change Article 29. We said no.

How did they try and tell you to change article 29, by condemning the law or by legislating against it?

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

Well, friend we shall fight you every step of the way. Some in the Supreme Court have tried to overrule the Articlr of our state constitution that protected marriage, but we simply said no to the agitators. If such a bill shall ever pass, it will make little difference, as we will defend Article I-29 until our last breath. I hope I shall never see the day when morality and ethics loses in our great state, but being 16 I fear I may one day see this. No matter, we'll be defiant until the bitter end.

As far as people who think being ethical entails discriminating against other people on the basis of their sexuality are concerned, I do very much hope their end is very bitter. The more you moan and groan the better in fact, 'my friend'.

Well, Article I-29 is going nowhere, even though some DC politicians have decried it as "evil." I doubt the youth of Nebraska are going to go much against what we believe.

[Neutraligon]

As far as people who think being ethical entails discriminating against other people on the basis of their sexuality are concerned, I do very much hope their end is very bitter. The more you moan and groan the better in fact, 'my friend'.

Well, Article I-29 is going nowhere, even though some DC politicians have decried it as "evil." I doubt the youth of Nebraska are going to go much against what we believe.

If it is eventually federally legislated against or ruled against using the supreme court, you will not have much of a choice.

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

No, people in DC have tried to tell us to change Article 29. We said no.

How did they try and tell you to change article 29, by condemning the law or by legislating against it?

A Supreme Court judge said it was unconstitutional. Years later, it's still here and those judges have forgotten.

[Neutraligon]

How did they try and tell you to change article 29, by condemning the law or by legislating against it?

A Supreme Court judge said it was unconstitutional. Years later, it's still here and those judges have forgotten.

1 Supreme court judge said it was unconstitutional does not a law make or break. It is when you have 5 Supreme Court judges make the ruling that such a law is unconstitutional that the law needs to be removed.

[Gauntleted Fist]

If it is eventually federally legislated against or ruled against using the supreme court, you will not have much of a choice.

I cannot wait for the day when this is so. It cannot come soon enough.