 |
| |
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
"If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000."
True, but I do not nessecarily agree with Zogby in resampling polls the way it does. The key point here is those past 3 elections were all ones the Democrats won-- at least in terms of the popular vote. And not only did Gore win the 2000 popular vote, but Nader took a number of votes that year, giving liberal candidates a solid 3 point edge in that election. It seems natural that Democrats would turn out in greater numbers in years where they got more votes; it is typically the case that in races where one party has a stronger candidate their political affiliation shows up more. I should expect in a race where the GOP had a greater advantage they would represent more of the turnout, and that it would be a mistake that voter registration by share of turnout will always be the same it was the previous three elections.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
If one really wants to get into the "party of hate," argument, then:
quote:
The Democratic party has since Wilson been a party of toleration, and inclusion, and has as a result been much more diverse, and hence factionalized, than the Republican party (this accounts for how many Democrats vote Republican in elections, but few Republicans vote Democrat).
|
Fair enough. But just because there is diversity on some issues in the Democratic party, does not meant that there is not unity on some issues.
Secondly, just because the Republicans tend to be more unified, that does not mean that they are necessarily unified on this point in particular.
In fact, I'll say this. The Republican party has more diversity over the issue of gay marriage than the Democratic party. You can find republicans on both sides of the issue, but you do not find any Democrats.
Why is this?
quote:
The Republican party has, in the past 50 years, become a party of intolerance (They opposed the civil rights acts, they are anti-gay).
|
It is necessarily because one opposes recognition of gay marriage that one is anti-gay? Is it possible that some Republicans believe that gay people themselves are hurt by their own desires?
If this is so, then the motivation of these Republicans, is not hate, but the precise opposite.
I cannot say the same for the Democrats. What do they say about all the Christians who oppose their agenda? They call them bigot, nazis, hatemongers. Do you hear the Republicans issuing the same charges to Kerry and his supporters?
No.
Just because the Republicans voted against the Civil Rights act, does not mean that all Republicans are of one mind on the issue.
In fact, let's look a little harder. Did all the Republicans vote against the civil rights act then?
Was it not the Republicans who were responsible for the Emancipation Proclaimation, for the 14th Amendment to the constitution?
If today, the party of the Republicans is not the same party of Lincoln, then I ask you why should we consider this Democrat party to be the party of Kennedy, of LBJ?
The Democrats are on the wrong side of today's civil liberties issue, the right to life of the unborn child. They are in favour of another issue that they believe has everything to do with civil liberties, the reality is that it has nothing.
Gay marriage is not about civil liberties, and runs contrary to the desires of men like MLK Jr., who acknowledged the right of the white men to disagree with him, as he said that the state cannot make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me.
Are gay men being lynched like the Blacks of the south? Are gay men being beaten in the streets by the authorities? Are they denied the right to vote, to own property, to have their ideas heard?
No. They are not oppressed, but rather, are a favoured minority. They are asking not for equal rights, but for preferential treatment.
You say that gay people are discriminated against by laws that favour marriage, then I ask you how does one justify laws that favour the handicapped, that provide disability payments?
They are given preferential treatment because society recognises their difficulties arise from disability. Is homosexuality the same? Is it a handicap requiring the ameliorative benefits of society?
quote:
Now, intolerance does not necessarily lead to hate, but it is much closer to it, and often does, than tolerance.
|
Intolerance of evil, is hatred of evil, yet who would fault a man for being intolerant of evil?
Secondly, you must also accept the preposition, that if to oppose gay marriage is the same as hating the gay man, that one cannot separate one's desires from one's identity. We would be all slaves without free will.
quote:
Also, currently, the religious right has monopolized the Republican party. You cannot deny that Bush said that he thinks of himself on a mission from God, he is trying to have religious groups take the place of programs like welfare, his stance against stem cells and gays and abortion are all dictated by the religious right.
|
Has Bush ever said that he believes he is on a mission to God? If not, then why do you presume that is the motivations of his actions?
He may just have the best interests in mind for American society, and he would still be right on all three issues.
If you believe an unborn child to be a human person, then you will also be opposed to the harvesting of human embryos for scientific experimentation. You will be opposed to the wanton industry of abortion, that treats them like garbage to be disposed in bins behind the clinics, or burnt like medical waste in the incinerator.
As for Gay marriage, if you believe that marriage between one man and one woman is greatly beneficial to society, then you will want to preserve the state against those who denigrate marriage.
This Bush has done on other issues too. He encourages poor people to get married because he sees the stark figures that the best way for poor people to get out of poverty is not from government handouts, but by getting married, and the contingent collaboration between both parties.
quote:
And this is a group that propogates hate. They, who are opposed to abortion because they think it murder, go and murder the people who perform abortions
|
Do they? How many people have been charged for the shootings of abortion doctors in the United States?
Is it right to blame the entire 'religious right' for the actions of a few people?
Would I then not be justified to tar all the Seattle protestors because a minority took to the streets as anarchists?
I am a pacifist, and I know many many people who are prolife. I will not associate, I will not tolerate those who choose to act as vigilantes and take justice into their own hands, to act as judge jury and executioner.
Either you can accept this testimony, shared by the vast majority of prolifers, or you can continue to tar us with the same brush.
quote:
Finally, what has been misinterpreted in the democrats as "mindless hate," is instead the realization that Bush stands against basically every value they have. The "anyone but Bush" argument is merely an acknowledgement that it is hard to imagine anyone taking the country down a path more disturbing to the left than the path Bush is following.
|
Do Republicans, if Kerry is diametrically opposed to their ideals, say that anybody but Kerry we will vote for? No. They vote for Bush because they believe in him more than they believe in Kerry.
To vote for Kerry because he is not Bush is the same logic that had people voting for Hitler, because he was not Communist.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 18-09-2004 at 16:36
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-09-2004 05:52
|