GOP House leadership makes it clear that gay equality is NOT tolerated in their party

[jbrown329]

Once again a certain person has run a thread off the rails.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are quoting Jefferson of the 200 slaves? Was there ever a bigger hypocrit? And yes I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--economic liberty being the most important.

Jefferson was no hypocrite, he was a realist. Freed slaves in that time and place had little chance of staying free, and less chance of any kind of life even if they did. If the realities of the Revolution had not intruded, Jefferson might have achieved his goal of providing each of his slave families with fifty acres of their own land and freeing them; as landowners they would have had a very good chance of keeping their freedom, especially in the Virginia counties in what is now Kentucky.

You claim that economic liberty is "the most important" -- a ludicrous position at best -- yet you condemn a man who wanted just that for people he did not buy but inherited. And you do so as a way of dodging the very valid point that Jefferson had against the "Tidewater Elite", who wrote into law their economic dominance of the entire state, leaving neither liberty nor equality to others.

The reality is that you support the very thing that Jefferson fought: an aristocracy of wealth, where only the holders of wealth have any real liberty, where equality doesn't exist. So no, you don't "believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", you believe in the version Jefferson deliberately changed -- "life, liberty, and property", a phrase Jefferson did not use because he understood what you do not, namely that where property is exalted human life is devalued.

 

[Kulindahr]

Seems some people struggle with the idea of liberty for all.

And seem to believe that there's a footnote to "...are created equal" that says "Some are more equal than others".

 

[Kulindahr]

No, the Republicans would just roll back some of the governmental control of business to the time when our economy was the greatest the world has ever known and people all over the world envied our freedom. There is no evidence that gays cannot find work and places to live. The possibility that some bosses and landlords may discriminate does not justify governmental control. Other countries have tried total government control of everything, and still do. Your precious socialism has been imposed in Venezuela, Cube, North Korea. They, like you, throw away liberty to achieve equality and it is a horrible trade.
You probably think our liberals will not go so far in taking control. They will allow us some little liberty. Don't bet on it this entire episode of the government taking control of the nations showers and dressing rooms in the name of equality, proves that our liberals are no different than those in Venezuela, Chine, Russia. Just a little slower thanks to the Republicans.

Guaranteeing equal access under the law has nothing to do with socialism.

The tragedy of your blindness is that you argue in favor of the very thing you claim to oppose: an authoritarian regime in control of everything. The only difference between the Republicans and Democrats at this point is what areas of life over which they wish to impose that control.

 

[Kulindahr]

The freedom for 1/10th of 1% to have aggregated almost all the nation's wealth based on the exploitation of near slave labour in third world countries, while shipping their profits off-shore and demolishing the middle class that rose to affluence and security under labour unions in the 50's and 60's is also noted.

More importantly, that 0.1% control our elections. I wouldn't mind their profits and wealth (so long as earned fairly) if they would keep their hands off our government, but as it is, the only election that really counts on the national level -- and on the state level in many states -- is the one where the 0.1% decide who the rest of us will get to vote for.

The GOP supports an oligarchical democracy, wherein a privileged elite are the gatekeepers to political power, permitting the people to vote only for those already approved, and keeping the people from having any real voice except for those controlled votes.

 

[Kulindahr]

And China will soon pretty much literally own the world economy...even though they are still a repressive, reactionary totalitarian state that has embraced capitalism.

Add to "... embraced capitalism", as a tool for extending authoritarianism.

In other words China is doing the same thing the GOP favors: utilizing the power of wealth for a very few to dominate the many.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh bullshit.

I know a lot of Americans. Probably as many or more than you. And I certainly know way more liberals than you do.

Trying to pull some kind of American exceptionalism nonsense just doesn't work. It is a desperate ploy because you've got nothing.

The irony is that those who most seem to value American exceptionalism have become its greatest enemies -- for the simple reason that they don't understand what has made America exceptional.

 

[Benvolio]

Jefferson was no hypocrite, he was a realist. Freed slaves in that time and place had little chance of staying free, and less chance of any kind of life even if they did. If the realities of the Revolution had not intruded, Jefferson might have achieved his goal of providing each of his slave families with fifty acres of their own land and freeing them; as landowners they would have had a very good chance of keeping their freedom, especially in the Virginia counties in what is now Kentucky.

You claim that economic liberty is "the most important" -- a ludicrous position at best -- yet you condemn a man who wanted just that for people he did not buy but inherited. And you do so as a way of dodging the very valid point that Jefferson had against the "Tidewater Elite", who wrote into law their economic dominance of the entire state, leaving neither liberty nor equality to others.

The reality is that you support the very thing that Jefferson fought: an aristocracy of wealth, where only the holders of wealth have any real liberty, where equality doesn't exist. So no, you don't "believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", you believe in the version Jefferson deliberately changed -- "life, liberty, and property", a phrase Jefferson did not use because he understood what you do not, namely that where property is exalted human life is devalued.

Democrats used the same rationalization to the end of slavery, and yes, it was hypocrisy.
Econimic leberty is most important, because with, the others will follow; without it the others will be lost.
I of course do not belive in an aristocricy. With economic freedom. All have the opportunity to achieve wealth.
Many, many rise from great poverty to great wealth. Orah is worth 2 billion or so, Justin Bieber 20 million, etc; Most movie stars, pro ball players, entertainers, any one with a worthwhile innovation. It is a lie to say only the wealthy have freedom. Alas we do not have nearly enough poor people for you and your (democrat) kind.

 

[LittleDove]

One of the many ironies of 'majority rule' would be that did it actually exist, as Ben wants it to be, instead of being on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas would be in prison ... presuming, of course, that he hadn't been lynched before the iron door locked shut on him.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think the amount of support Bernie has received have easily proven there are a substantial number of US liberals that favor European ideas about government.

It's possible to support a lot of what Bernie says without buying into the European view that rights come from the state.

That, BTW, is what irks me most about that Newsroom clip: most of those other countries do not, in fact, actually have freedom, because what they do have is theirs not because the government belongs to them and exists at their sufferance, but because nature-provided government has permitted them their privileges. What used to distinguish the U.S. and made it exceptional was that we understood deep down that all authority arises from the people, to whom all rights and power belong; that government is an artificial creature to which nothing belongs except that the people grant it. Neither major party really believes that any more -- though the GOP is good at saying it -- and that's why America is no longer the greatest country on earth.

 

[Kulindahr]

And they want other people to pay for it. [STRIKE]That is the primary purpose for our massive immigration. If Americans don't want socialism, flood the country with poor unemployed people and rush them to voting citizenship.[/STRIKE]

"Other people" ALWAYS "pay for it" -- that's the reality of life together.

Those who worship "the job creators" have the same attitude; most of the "job creators" as the GOP currently defines them have wealth only because other people pay for it. All the sorts of income the GOP wants taxed lightly, if at all, is unearned income -- unearned by those who receive it, that is; it's actually earned by hundreds or thousands of others earning it... but not getting it. Thanks to GOP economic policy since Reagan, the wealth flows upward, unearned, channeled there by laws that favor unearned income over earned income.

The rest of your post is just the usual mindless fascist rant issued as a smokescreen to hide undying devotion to a wealthy elite who care nothing for rights or liberty or equality, to whom the word "freedom" means having virtually unlimited room for trampling on others and stifling all competition.

 

[Kulindahr]

Classic xenophobic response. When you've been proven unequivocally to be wrong, you blame foreigners.

It is you who claims their is a magical 'cost' to providing people other than yourself liberty and freedom.

Your stance is basically 'I want to do whatever I want to do, and I want others to do what I want them to do, and I don't want to have any responsibilities'.

That's not liberty, that's simple selfishness. The logic of a spoilt child.

There is a cost to liberty. Part of that cost is caring that everyone has the same liberty you do.

Some just don't want to pay that cost.

 

[Kulindahr]

Once again a certain person has run a thread off the rails.

Yes, but it is illustrative. The run from the rails has demonstrated the view that profit is more important than either principles or people, that it is a fair deal to trade the liberty of LGBT people for the profits of an elite.

In short, the very arguments ventured against the thread's proposition serve to validate it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Democrats used the same rationalization to the end of slavery, and yes, it was hypocrisy.
Econimic leberty is most important, because with, the others will follow; without it the others will be lost.
I of course do not belive in an aristocricy. With economic freedom. All have the opportunity to achieve wealth.
Many, many rise from great poverty to great wealth. Orah is worth 2 billion or so, Justin Bieber 20 million, etc; Most movie stars, pro ball players, entertainers, any one with a worthwhile innovation. It is a lie to say only the wealthy have freedom. Alas we do not have nearly enough poor people for you and your (democrat) kind.

Really? Democrats introduced legislation to give every slave family fifty acres of their own, so they'd not only be free buyt eligible to vote?

Show the evidence!

No, very few rise from great poverty to great wealth -- the U.S. is one of the most economically immobile countries on the planet, barely above the level of third-world 'republics'. And it has gotten in that condition thanks to GOP legislation which highly rewards certain kinds of unearned income.

We have far too many poor people. We would have fewer right now if the GOP hadn't blocked legislation that would have kept skilled visitors here to create jobs for Americans, and hadn't blocked legislation for fixing our infrastructure.

The Democrats are no great managers of the economy, but at least they aren't enabling economic rape.

 

[rareboy]

Democrats used the same rationalization to the end of slavery, and yes, it was hypocrisy.
Econimic leberty is most important, because with, the others will follow; without it the others will be lost.
I of course do not belive in an aristocricy. (sic) With economic freedom. All have the opportunity to achieve wealth.

Many, many rise from great poverty to great wealth. Orah is worth 2 billion or so, Justin Bieber 20 million, etc; Most movie stars, pro ball players, entertainers, any one with a worthwhile innovation. It is a lie to say only the wealthy have freedom. Alas we do not have nearly enough poor people for you and your (democrat) kind.

Do you even realize how stupid this sounds?
Many, many don't. You probably couldn't name 1000 who have done this.

And just because we vastly overpay our sports and entertainment celebrities doesn't prop up your Horatio Alger notion of how America is supposed to work economically.

All you are still citing is the phenomenon of wealth aggregation by 1/10th of 1 percent. So few people are born who will have the musical gift or gift for acting or entertaining that the very, very few that we want to pay to see get showered in gold. If 99% of the populace had these exceptional gifts, they would have no monetary value.



This type of post just shows how utterly and completely ignorant you are of economics.

Jesus. Wept.

 

[Benvolio]

Really? Democrats introduced legislation to give every slave family fifty acres of their own, so they'd not only be free buyt eligible to vote?

Show the evidence!

No, very few rise from great poverty to great wealth -- the U.S. is one of the most economically immobile countries on the planet, barely above the level of third-world 'republics'. And it has gotten in that condition thanks to GOP legislation which highly rewards certain kinds of unearned income.

We have far too many poor people. We would have fewer right now if the GOP hadn't blocked legislation that would have kept skilled visitors here to create jobs for Americans, and hadn't blocked legislation for fixing our infrastructure.

The Democrats are no great managers of the economy, but at least they aren't enabling economic rape.

Jefferson did not give his slaves 50 acres either. Instead he rationalized that they would have little chance and were better off as slaves. Other plantation owner would have agreed.
Out of one side of your mouth, you say we have too many poor. But out of the other side you agree with the democrats that we should continue to allow in masses of poor and unemployed people. Hypocrisy.
The real purpose of the legislation you speak of it to put tax money into the pockets of the democrats, labor bosses and politicians. Tax, tax, tax, rebuild the infrastructure whether needed or not, insist upon union labor, (democrats) preference for minorities( democrats), big union dues and big union contributions to the democrats. All at taxpayer expense.

 

[Kabluey]

Jefferson did not give his slaves 50 acres either. Instead he rationalized that they would have little chance and were better off as slaves. Other plantation owner would have agreed.
Out of one side of your mouth, you say we have too many poor. But out of the other side you agree with the democrats that we should continue to allow in masses of poor and unemployed people. Hypocrisy.
The real purpose of the legislation you speak of it to put tax money into the pockets of the democrats, labor bosses and politicians. Tax, tax, tax, rebuild the infrastructure whether needed or not, insist upon union labor, (democrats) preference for minorities( democrats), big union dues and big union contributions to the democrats. All at taxpayer expense.

The GOP prefers the everyone to stay where they are, and that includes gays.
They'd also like to pretend things like bridges don't need maintenance, it seems, especially not by people with tans.

Your logic does explain why certain states are literally falling apart at the seams.

 

[Benvolio]

The GOP prefers the everyone to stay where they are, and that includes gays.
They'd also like to pretend things like bridges don't need maintenance, it seems, especially not by people with tans.

Your logic does explain why certain states are literally falling apart at the seams.

You imagine from New Zealand that states are falling Part?lol,lol
Maintenance of the infrastructure is the Constitutional responsibility of the states (except the interstate) and they do a good enough job. Dems exaggerate the problem because the want to shovel taxpayers money to demacrats.

 

[Kulindahr]

Jefferson did not give his slaves 50 acres either. Instead he rationalized that they would have little chance and were better off as slaves. Other plantation owner would have agreed.

Jefferson didn't have the land to give his slaves fifty acres each. Nor did he think they were "better off as slaves" -- he knew they weren't. What he recognized was that there was nothing he could do that would let them stop being slaves: if he'd freed them, there was little chance they would remain free.

Out of one side of your mouth, you say we have too many poor. But out of the other side you agree with the democrats that we should continue to allow in masses of poor and unemployed people. Hypocrisy.

Your alleged "masses" only come here because there is work to be had. The only reason they remain poor once here is GOP economic policy.

Back in the 60s, poor unemployed Cubans swarmed Florida. They outnumbered the residents of South Florida at the time. Yes, there were some among them who brought wealth, but what they mostly brought was a belief in working hard. The result was an economic miracle that saved at least one U.S. industry from the dust bin.

In the early 60s, another swarm of Cubans, far poorer this time, hit Florida. They, too, worked hard. They arrived unemployed, but that didn't last long; if they couldn't find work, they started their own businesses. They thrived.

Those two examples alone demolish your whine about allowing in "poor and unemployed people".

The real purpose of the legislation you speak of it to put tax money into the pockets of the democrats, labor bosses and politicians.

Rubbish -- the point of the legislation was to provide jobs, of which we have three to five million fewer now than we would have had the GOP not been so anti-employment. Few if any of those jobs would have been union.

Tax, tax, tax, rebuild the infrastructure whether needed or not, insist upon union labor, (democrats) preference for minorities( democrats), big union dues and big union contributions to the democrats. All at taxpayer expense.

"Needed or not"? The U.S. transportation system is second-rate. Its deficiencies are bad enough they cost people who drive multiple billions a year on damage to their vehicles. Bridges that should be condemned are still in use; highways built to late 1950s standards crumble, both damaging vehicles and slowing commerce.

Nothing to do with unions, everything to do with keeping Americas safe and business working.

 

[Kulindahr]

You imagine from New Zealand that states are falling Part?lol,lol
Maintenance of the infrastructure is the Constitutional responsibility of the states (except the interstate) and they do a good enough job. Dems exaggerate the problem because the want to shovel taxpayers money to demacrats.

1, Any road that carries U.S. mail comes under the authority of the federal government -- that's the constitutional position on roads.

2. A job of maintaining highways that costs drivers multiple billions a year in repairs to their vehicles is not by any stretch of the imagination "good enough".

3. The people emphasizing the problem are engineers. Their party affiliation is irrelevant.


BTW, being in New Zealand is irrelevant to the matter: 100% of the U.S. population lives over a thousand miles from a large portion of the transportation infrastructure problems and will never experience those, That doesn't disqualify them from reading reports and being aware of the facts -- so distance and lack of using the structures in question doesn't disqualify people overseas, either.