Prominent Republicans Ask the Supreme Court to Support Gay Marriage

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Link.

The New York Times:

Dozens of prominent Republicans - including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress - have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.

The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

I'm surprised nobody's talking about this. A huge swath of Republican lawmakers, including governors, congresspeople, and former presidential candidates, have drafted a brief to be sent to the Supreme Court which defends gay marriage as advancing conservative principles and family values. Seemingly out of nowhere, a large chunk of the infamous far-right party have signed on in support of equal rights. I'm interested in what this means for the Republicans in the coming years. Will we see the party split over this issue, or will it slowly move towards a more acceptable social policy? What will socially conservative voters do as they continue to lose power and influence in congress? Is this a move that indicates a larger trend or is it simply a splinter group that will be quickly silenced?

Good news, for the USA and for the Republican party. If this sort of thing has that much traction, it's a good sign regarding the Republicans' adapting. I don't really think the party will split, but will people leave it for more extreme segments? Sure, but that's always happened to an extent. The establishment Republicans and those actually focusing on economics appear to start realizing they can't hold on to the social conservative stuff if they want to win elections. And they do. It may just be a splinter group but frankly I don't think the main swath of the party will want to continue supporting the social conservative fringe considering how many elections it has cost them by now.

Well that's quite good to hear. If Republicans can actually dump the social conservative nonsense then I'd think that would bode well for our political situation becoming more reasonable.

I know I shouldn't think like this but in my eyes this is the easy way out. A legislator doesn't need to propose or vote on gay equality legislation if the supreme court takes down gay inequality anyways.

A step in the right direction, but let's first see how sincere this is, and how much impact it makes within the republican party.

dmase:
I know I shouldn't think like this but in my eyes this is the easy way out. A legislator doesn't need to propose or vote on gay equality legislation if the supreme court takes down gay inequality anyways.

I'll take the easy way at this point. Put a Supreme Court double slap on the bigots and shut them up once and for all. Far better to do it this way than to wait for the backwards hicks in the south (and I am most certainly thinking of my own state when I say that) to come around. We're still electing people who seriously believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. No, far better to just take it out of their hands.

sorry i had to make sure my cats hadnt grown wings and to see if i gain power over cup cakes

seriously? im actually really impressed by this, heck even if its just a small token im pleasently surprised that they are doing this.... well done republicans (cant believe im saying that without sarcasm)

dmase:
I know I shouldn't think like this but in my eyes this is the easy way out. A legislator doesn't need to propose or vote on gay equality legislation if the supreme court takes down gay inequality anyways.

This fits into an analysis of much of establishment politics. When there's a hot potatoe issue (abortion/gun rights) have the USSC hallucinate that one side wins, and the establishment gets to move on, shrug, say there's nothing they can do.

It is cowardly and doesn't allow opponents to fight matters out in the political arena. I think the USSC should stick to restraint and allow the politicians to fight it out so that we are still a self governing nation rather than a people that punt to elitists and when the going gets tough.

75 Republicans might sound like a lot but it's only a small fraction of the top Republican leadership, which is still firmly anti-gay.

That's not to say it's insignificant. I'm not sure how much influence amicus briefs have in cases, probably not a lot, but even though they're a minority within the Republican party they represent the cutting edge of conservative acceptance of gay marriage that's finally breaking through in America like it already has in Canada, the UK, New Zealand and some Latin American and European countries, and when the justices are deciding an issue that will remain precedent for decades, they're not going to be oblivious to what the right side of history and the wrong side of history are looking like.

I think this is good news. Not because they were ever much of a threat to the progression of the legalization of gay marriage on a national level (the Supreme Court will rule on DOMA very soon and most everyone expects it to be stricken down), but because it's a sign that the non-tea party people within the Republican party who are willing to compromise and play to the moderates are finding their voice again. After this last loss they really need to re-evaluate their priorities, and I think this is a good start. I say start because this one was pretty inevitable to begin with. Their choices at this point are to let it go by gracefully or be dragged kicking and screaming the rest of the way. After the impotent rage that was spewed out after the election, the last thing they need is more of a reason for people to think them childish.

To me, they can continue on this good path by taking a similar approach to abortion and birth control. There's no way they will ever get abortion banned, and even regulations have proven difficult, to the point where they're doing obnoxious things like forcing women to have trans-vaginal ultrasounds done before abortions, for the express purpose of having them see what's inside them and to try to guilt them out of doing it. And if they continue to pretend there is no reason to be on birth control except "lifestyle choices" they'll never get rid of their reputation for being the party for ignorant old men who know nothing about women's health but are perfectly willing to legislate on it at the drop of a hat. Then after that, they can at least concede that some sort of safety net is necessary to retain a certain standard of living, so we don't drop back to the Dickensian era of poor people dropping dead in the streets from starvation. Enough of these Ayn Rand-worshipping lunatics, they're almost as scary as Todd Akin with the nonsense they spout.

Gorfias:
This fits into an analysis of much of establishment politics. When there's a hot potatoe issue (abortion/gun rights) have the USSC hallucinate that one side wins, and the establishment gets to move on, shrug, say there's nothing they can do.

It is cowardly and doesn't allow opponents to fight matters out in the political arena. I think the USSC should stick to restraint and allow the politicians to fight it out so that we are still a self governing nation rather than a people that punt to elitists and when the going gets tough.

Both sides use the Supreme Court to try and finish their battles. It may have been the Democrats who brought DOMA to the Supreme Court, but it's the Republicans in California who have appealed the California law regarding gay marriage they are also looking into. I think the Supreme Court has its place, given that unlike politicians they have no choice but to use reason. While a politician can get away with saying the law defends "family values"[1] and can get enough of his buddies to stand behind it that getting the theocratic nonsense thrown out takes decades, the Supreme Court circumvents all that crap and forces the objectivity to set in sooner. If it weren't for the rulings of the Supreme Court the Jim Crow laws and that "separate but equal" nonsense would have dragged on for a lot longer than it did. Plus it serves as a reminder for politicians of what they can and can't get away with. I don't like the idea of them being able to pass laws that completely disobey either the constitution or the rights of others just because they managed to get enough terrible people to vote it in. Checks and balances, checks and balances.

[1] "Family values" being a euphemism for "conservative Christian values."

PLEASE please please please let this be a sign that the moderates are coming back into power for both parties. A big reason why I voted for Obama in 2008 was because I thought the republicans could use a swift kick in the ass as they were getting lazy and complacent. If i knew that the Tea Party was going to be the result of said kick I would have rethought my vote.

I don't mean to rain on the "the GOP is finally reaching modernity" parade, but I'm noticing a distinct lack of Republicans with something to lose by signing onto this brief. Specifically, there are only 4 actual elected Republicans signatories who currently hold office:

Mary Bono Mack - US House Member for the district based in Orange County, California
John Reagan - New Hampshire State Senator
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen - US House Member for the district based in Miami-Dade County, Florida
Dan Zwonitzer - Wyoming State Representative

With the exception of the Wyoming state representative, all of the serving politicians are in districts where support for gay marriage is generally popular and there is a minimal chance of backlash over this issue. The much of the remainder are recognized as part of what is often called the "GOP establishment," moderate members who were in leadership and logistics positions who largely work or worked for the interests associated with the party nationally. Most notable is Ken Mehlman, the 2004 RNC Chairman who spearheaded the Gay Marriage ban as a wedge issue despite being gay himself.

While I have little doubt that their opinions are sincere (having met a few of them personally, I know that they are), they are not representative of the movement conservatives today that drive policy and largely populate the US House Republican Caucus. For example: the upcoming CPAC convention, the premere gathering of conservative groups in the US and frequented of GOP standard bearers, will still not allow GOProud, a conservative gay Republican group, to participate in the convention. When the base changes their attitudes towards gays, then you can really mark a change in the conversation.

Ryotknife:
PLEASE please please please let this be a sign that the moderates are coming back into power for both parties. A big reason why I voted for Obama in 2008 was because I thought the republicans could use a swift kick in the ass as they were getting lazy and complacent. If i knew that the Tea Party was going to be the result of said kick I would have rethought my vote.

Yeah, the tea party did result from Obama's gaining the Presidency. While it was funded by a couple of rich guys with political interests, it drew on the fire and energy of the social conservative crowd, who whipped themselves into a frenzy over gays and abortion. Not to mention all the birthers and their "ERMAGHERD BLACK GUY IS PRESIDENT, JUST LOOK AT HIS NAME CLEARLY HE'S A MUSLIM TERRORIST." The GOP latched onto this group because it was felt after John McCain the party was lacking in spirit and fervor. Unfortunately for them, while it did light a fire under the party it also made huge swathes of voters run for the hills in fear and disgust.

I'm kind of having trouble imagining what would have happened if the tea party hadn't formed. I'm not sure if the tea party inspired people like Todd Akin (the "legitimate rape" guy) to not only express but to pursue those extreme views, or if the tea party has simply drawn attention to them more. Because as you pointed out, even before the tea party the Republicans were far too off to the right for their own good. Perhaps the tea party has done for the Republicans as the Westboro Baptist Church has done for anti-gay religious communities. They have taken the group to its most logical extreme, and the result is a satire that is terrifying in its accuracy. When people see that extreme reflection, it gives them a bit of perspective on what they're doing and how not-so-different it is from that disgustingly extreme group.

@Lilani, I think the whole conversation has been shifted to the right, like the current 'left' used to actually be the center. Obama is not nearly as extreme as he's been labeled and has pulled ideas from the opposite side of the isle in an attempt to try and compromise (Romneycare anyone?), however like you pointed out, the underlining racism and fear of a black man in the presidency seemed to get all the attention and give the Tea-derp-partiers a unified, albeit ignorant, voice. With the help of Faux News they then had a soap box to stand on.

I think on issues like this and immigration the GOP is trying to find some consensus, but unfortunately, putting people like Marc Rubio as their spokesperson, or in this case getting a small minority of fair-marriage supporters, is only a temporary distraction from the underlying rigidity of the elder statesmen.

l0ckd0wn:
@Lilani, I think the whole conversation has been shifted to the right, like the current 'left' used to actually be the center. Obama is not nearly as extreme as he's been labeled and has pulled ideas from the opposite side of the isle in an attempt to try and compromise (Romneycare anyone?), however like you pointed out, the underlining racism and fear of a black man in the presidency seemed to get all the attention and give the Tea-derp-partiers a unified, albeit ignorant, voice. With the help of Faux News they then had a soap box to stand on.

I think on issues like this and immigration the GOP is trying to find some consensus, but unfortunately, putting people like Marc Rubio as their spokesperson, or in this case getting a small minority of fair-marriage supporters, is only a temporary distraction from the underlying rigidity of the elder statesmen.

Eh...speaking as someone who for the most part like moderate democrats or republicans, Obama is a bit too liberal for my taste. He is not a full blown liberal, but he does toe the line which is why he is kinda "meh" to me. I dont hate him by any stretch...in fact he is probably the only living politician who i like as a person (although I will be lynched if my friends or coworkers heard me say that). Obamacare and his stance on guns are very liberal. While that is only two issues, they are two important issues.

I will also give Obama credit for being willing to compromise more so than Republicans or even the other Democrats. He obviously doesnt always compromise, even if he only compromises 30% of the time that is still significantly more than the other politicians.

Ryotknife:
Eh...speaking as someone who for the most part like moderate democrats or republicans, Obama is a bit too liberal for my taste. He is not a full blown liberal, but he does toe the line which is why he is kinda "meh" to me. I dont hate him by any stretch...in fact he is probably the only living politician who i like as a person (although I will be lynched if my friends or coworkers heard me say that). Obamacare and his stance on guns are very liberal. While that is only two issues, they are two important issues.

Obamacare is not liberal. Back in the 1990s the Clinton administration attempted to implement a universal healthcare system similar to the German model of private insurers competing within intensely strict regulations and mandating all employers provide health insurance. The Obamacare model actually originated as a moderate-conservative Republican compromise to full universal healthcare, which is why you saw it implemented first in Massachusetts under a Republican governor.

Here is the liberal-conservative spectrum on healthcare systems, starting at liberal and gradually getting more conservative:

1) Full coverage to all through single payer "Medicare for all" type system (UK, Australia, Canada) -> 2) Full coverage to all through tight regulations of private insurers, price controls and subsidies to the poor (Germany, Japan) -> 3) Incomplete coverage through some regulation of private insurers, a tax exemption for those with insurance and some government provided healthcare to the elderly and very poor (Obamacare) -> 4) Every man for himself (many developing countries)

America is the only developed country that doesn't use either the first or the second system. Similarly, even if Obama gets his way on guns America will still have some of the loosest controls on obtaining firearms in the developed world. Something doesn't become "liberal" just because the major conservative party of the day doesn't like it, especially when they've liked it in the past.

Well that's refreshing. Keep working at it, I say. Of course nobody expects an overnight one-eighty turn in the general GOP stance (at least, nobody that's also a reasonable person), but every little bit helps, so to say.

Going to take a while still tho, I suppose.

Lilani:
It may have been the Democrats who brought DOMA to the Supreme Court, but it's the Republicans in California who have appealed the California law regarding gay marriage they are also looking into.

Is that the one where a court over-turned a law passed by the people? I may find the law noxious, but unless pretty clearly prohibited, I want minds changed. Not an elite simply replacing the will of the majority on their own.

But your point is taken. I don't doubt the right would use courts to get their way if they could. There are those that would like the unborn to have 14th Amendment rights, something the 14th was never meant to do. I'd hate an elite court deciding the 14th has "grown" to include the unborn, making abortion everywhere illegal.[/quote]

Gorfias:

Lilani:
It may have been the Democrats who brought DOMA to the Supreme Court, but it's the Republicans in California who have appealed the California law regarding gay marriage they are also looking into.

Is that the one where a court over-turned a law passed by the people? I may find the law noxious, but unless pretty clearly prohibited, I want minds changed. Not an elite simply replacing the will of the majority on their own.

But your point is taken. I don't doubt the right would use courts to get their way if they could. There are those that would like the unborn to have 14th Amendment rights, something the 14th was never meant to do. I'd hate an elite court deciding the 14th has "grown" to include the unborn, making abortion everywhere illegal.

[/quote]
Actually, I think I may have gotten in backwards. Looking it up, it seems the amendment (prop 8) was a constitutional amendment for the state of California saying that only marriages between a man and a woman would be recognized. The amendment has been appealed and made it up to the SC which will rule on it in tandem with DOMA.

Anyway, I do understand why you are against judicial review, and if a few circumstances were different I would agree with you. And while yes the court could do something as crazy as try to use the 14th amendment to address abortion, and it probably has happened before in its history, I think that happens on a much less regular basis than people or politicians voting in laws that blatantly disregard pre-existing laws and constitutional amendments. Just because "the people" vote a law in doesn't automatically make it some sacred thing that must be respected under all circumstances. I'm certain there are counties and precincts within this country that would vote in sodomy laws by a fantastic margin, or vote in laws that make miscarriages equal to manslaughter.

And it's clear that with all of the "separate but equal" nonsense in the 50s, the sodomy laws that existed in the 70s through the 90s, and the laws trying to be passed today about gay marriage and contraception that this has a history of happening and continues to happen today. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find cases where the Supreme Court clearly went too far, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find more cases of that than cases of states or citizens voting laws in that trample on the rights of others.

Lilani:

Anyway, I do understand why you are against judicial review, and if a few circumstances were different I would agree with you. And while yes the court could do something as crazy as try to use the 14th amendment to address abortion, and it probably has happened before in its history, I think that happens on a much less regular basis than people or politicians voting in laws that blatantly disregard pre-existing laws and constitutional amendments. Just because "the people" vote a law in doesn't automatically make it some sacred thing that must be respected under all circumstances. I'm certain there are counties and precincts within this country that would vote in sodomy laws by a fantastic margin, or vote in laws that make miscarriages equal to manslaughter.

And it's clear that with all of the "separate but equal" nonsense in the 50s, the sodomy laws that existed in the 70s through the 90s, and the laws trying to be passed today about gay marriage and contraception that this has a history of happening and continues to happen today. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find cases where the Supreme Court clearly went too far, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find more cases of that than cases of states or citizens voting laws in that trample on the rights of others.

For the conservatives gun rights is the issue where they will use the courts to override local legislation. Of course from their perspective they believe that they are protecting people from unconstitutional laws while their opponents believe that the constitution does not extend that far. The same-sex marriage issue merely reverses the sides.

Nielas:
For the conservatives gun rights is the issue where they will use the courts to override local legislation. Of course from their perspective they believe that they are protecting people from unconstitutional laws while their opponents believe that the constitution does not extend that far. The same-sex marriage issue merely reverses the sides.

Well, yes and no, I think. I agree with you about how the conservatives view the new gun laws and how they will probably use the courts to try to get rid of them, I don't think it is 100% comparable to gay marriage. The gay marriage thing is pretty cut and dry--there is no non-religious or objective reason to limit marriage to one man and one woman. So if every reason has a religious component, then that is in direct violant with the wording of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That's why its support has only fallen like a rock in recent years--we've gotten to a point where we will no longer accept blatantly religious laws, and since nobody can produce secular reasons it's got no legs to stand on.

The gun laws are a much hairier issue. While the constitution does state citizens have the right to bear arms, I don't think even the most zealous gun advocates would be willing to just let people freely purchase high explosives, mortars, missiles, or atomic weaponry, so the line of what arms the average citizen should have access to has to be drawn somewhere. The question is where, and that is exactly the issue the new gun laws are dealing with, as well as what requirements people should meet to possess weapons and weapons of a higher caliber. Personally I think the people who define "freedom" by being able to purchase a gun without a background check are out of their ever loving minds, but I'm really not in the mood to get too far into the issue so I'll stop this rant right here.

Lilani:
The gay marriage thing is pretty cut and dry--there is no non-religious or objective reason to limit marriage to one man and one woman. So if every reason has a religious component, then that is in direct violant with the wording of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That's why its support has only fallen like a rock in recent years--we've gotten to a point where we will no longer accept blatantly religious laws, and since nobody can produce secular reasons it's got no legs to stand on.

As far as I'm aware, that is not the legal argument being proposed in favor of gay marriage at all. It's about equal protection (and for DOMA, there is a concern about the recognition of legal proceedings in different states.) The thing is, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit laws enacted or maintained in a certain way due to religious concerns. (Maybe it should? But that has not historically been the case.) It does exclude religious reasons as a 'rational basis' or 'compelling state interest' (though I don't think it is the only thing that does so-- the very terms themselves, 'rational basis' and 'compelling' state interest seem to do so.) But the reason we tend to demand rational bases or compelling state interests and so on is because of equal protection concerns (or some other Constitutional concern.) Not all laws or provisions of laws need a rational basis or compelling state interest in order to be valid: it is the ones that offend some value in the Constitution that need them. If some part of, for example, a tax law is decided in a certain way because many legislators happen to have a Protestant background rather than a Muslim or Jewish one, that is not in itself an argument against that tax law. That legislators are anti-gay seemingly only because of (or in a way that can only be in any sense 'justified' by) their religious views is not in itself an argument in favor of the Unconstitutionality of DOMA or Proposition 8-- that these seem targeted at a minority group, and are examples of state discrimination, is. That they have nothing other than religious reasons is not an argument against them: it just means that "well, but it's better we do it this way anyway" (which is essentially the rationale under examination in rational basis review, intermediate/heightened scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) has no leg to stand on.

ten.to.ten:

Ryotknife:
Eh...speaking as someone who for the most part like moderate democrats or republicans, Obama is a bit too liberal for my taste. He is not a full blown liberal, but he does toe the line which is why he is kinda "meh" to me. I dont hate him by any stretch...in fact he is probably the only living politician who i like as a person (although I will be lynched if my friends or coworkers heard me say that). Obamacare and his stance on guns are very liberal. While that is only two issues, they are two important issues.

Obamacare is not liberal. Back in the 1990s the Clinton administration attempted to implement a universal healthcare system similar to the German model of private insurers competing within intensely strict regulations and mandating all employers provide health insurance. The Obamacare model actually originated as a moderate-conservative Republican compromise to full universal healthcare, which is why you saw it implemented first in Massachusetts under a Republican governor.

Here is the liberal-conservative spectrum on healthcare systems, starting at liberal and gradually getting more conservative:

1) Full coverage to all through single payer "Medicare for all" type system (UK, Australia, Canada) -> 2) Full coverage to all through tight regulations of private insurers, price controls and subsidies to the poor (Germany, Japan) -> 3) Incomplete coverage through some regulation of private insurers, a tax exemption for those with insurance and some government provided healthcare to the elderly and very poor (Obamacare) -> 4) Every man for himself (many developing countries)

America is the only developed country that doesn't use either the first or the second system. Similarly, even if Obama gets his way on guns America will still have some of the loosest controls on obtaining firearms in the developed world. Something doesn't become "liberal" just because the major conservative party of the day doesn't like it, especially when they've liked it in the past.

by European standards, it might not be liberal. That doesnt mean it isnt liberal to us. By AMERICAN standards it is liberal, and since the context of the situation is an issue inside of America, that is all that matters.

Hell, there are even places inside of the US where the conservative-liberal spectrum is different from the overall american one. For example, here in New York State, conservative republican often means moderate Democrat or a centralist.

Anything that smells like universal healthcare is considered liberal. Anything that involves banning guns is considered to be liberal. If those things are not considered liberal in your country THAT IS FINE, but dont dictate to us what we can or can not consider liberal or conservative in our own country. We dont jump down Europe's throat over its definition of conservative. Nobody appointed your country, or Europe in general, as the grand rulers of the universe.

....that belongs to Hideo Kojima

Ryotknife:
by European standards, it might not be liberal. That doesnt mean it isnt liberal to us. By AMERICAN standards it is liberal, and since the context of the situation is an issue inside of America, that is all that matters.

Hell, there are even places inside of the US where the conservative-liberal spectrum is different from the overall american one. For example, here in New York State, conservative republican often means moderate Democrat or a centralist.

Anything that smells like universal healthcare is considered liberal. Anything that involves banning guns is considered to be liberal. If those things are not considered liberal in your country THAT IS FINE, but dont dictate to us what we can or can not consider liberal or conservative in our own country. We dont jump down Europe's throat over its definition of conservative. Nobody appointed your country, or Europe in general, as the grand rulers of the universe.

....that belongs to Hideo Kojima

In short, America is a land of crazy people. While the rest of the world has figured out that certain things are A Really Good Idea, America is hanging out in backwardsville claiming "Yeah, that may be fine for you, but we're so Different and Special" while wearing their trousers on their heads. Unfortunately, the cultural narrative here is that America is The Savior of the Earth and The Best Nation Ever, rather than just the only modern country that was too far away from where things were actually going down to really be effected. Until something changes, it seems likely that we'll remain 40 years behind the rest of the world.

Ryotknife:
by European standards, it might not be liberal. That doesnt mean it isnt liberal to us. By AMERICAN standards it is liberal, and since the context of the situation is an issue inside of America, that is all that matters.

Anything that smells like universal healthcare is considered liberal.

No, it's not. The idea that eventually passed was originally proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation based on conservative "personal responsibility". It was the core the GOP healthcare proposal in the 1990s.

Liberal would be either single payer or a public insurance corporation.

Anything that involves banning guns is considered to be liberal.

Which is funny, because 60% generally and half of Republicans support an assault weapon ban. Everything less restrictive than that (with the sole exception of limits on clip size which only enjoyed a 9% margin in support) enjoy minimum 2-to-1 support, and up to 9-to-1 support (Require background check for all purchases).

If those things are not considered liberal in your country THAT IS FINE, but dont dictate to us what we can or can not consider liberal or conservative in our own country.

You might want to do some basic statistical research before you start spouting what is liberal or conservative in the US as well.

We dont jump down Europe's throat over its definition of conservative. Nobody appointed your country, or Europe in general, as the grand rulers of the universe.

But you Americans feel totally fine calling our countries socialist hellscapes and deriding our economic and political systems that, unlike your system, is actually getting shit done (even if the austerity is being proven to not work) as opposed to the suicide-pact politics that would normally make your system a joke if it wasn't causing disastrous economic consequences both domestically and abroad.

And until you get off the "America is the greatest country in the world and should be the model all ascribe to" high horse, you're in no position yell about "grand rulers of the universe"

Hang on, I'll be back. Gotta check if pigs are flying and if Hell has frozen over, because that definitely sounds like crazy talk. Though it seems to be the best damn crazy-talk I've heard in a long time, and that is a sight for sore eyes. Hopefully this faction wins out against the more extremist parts of the Republican party.

Aris Khandr:

Ryotknife:
by European standards, it might not be liberal. That doesnt mean it isnt liberal to us. By AMERICAN standards it is liberal, and since the context of the situation is an issue inside of America, that is all that matters.

Hell, there are even places inside of the US where the conservative-liberal spectrum is different from the overall american one. For example, here in New York State, conservative republican often means moderate Democrat or a centralist.

Anything that smells like universal healthcare is considered liberal. Anything that involves banning guns is considered to be liberal. If those things are not considered liberal in your country THAT IS FINE, but dont dictate to us what we can or can not consider liberal or conservative in our own country. We dont jump down Europe's throat over its definition of conservative. Nobody appointed your country, or Europe in general, as the grand rulers of the universe.

....that belongs to Hideo Kojima

In short, America is a land of crazy people. While the rest of the world has figured out that certain things are A Really Good Idea, America is hanging out in backwardsville claiming "Yeah, that may be fine for you, but we're so Different and Special" while wearing their trousers on their heads. Unfortunately, the cultural narrative here is that America is The Savior of the Earth and The Best Nation Ever, rather than just the only modern country that was too far away from where things were actually going down to really be effected. Until something changes, it seems likely that we'll remain 40 years behind the rest of the world.

Right...which is why so many Americans are dissatisifed with the government. Even many Southeners are despising the government, and not just the Democrats part of it. A lot of people are getting fed up with the politicians and government in general. The people who think we are the best NATION ever are a shrinking minority. There are still individuals who think we are the best PEOPLE ever, but that is a different story.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64390.html

81% of americans unhappy with the government.

Ryotknife:
by European standards, it might not be liberal. That doesnt mean it isnt liberal to us. By AMERICAN standards it is liberal, and since the context of the situation is an issue inside of America, that is all that matters.

Hell, there are even places inside of the US where the conservative-liberal spectrum is different from the overall american one. For example, here in New York State, conservative republican often means moderate Democrat or a centralist.

Anything that smells like universal healthcare is considered liberal. Anything that involves banning guns is considered to be liberal. If those things are not considered liberal in your country THAT IS FINE, but dont dictate to us what we can or can not consider liberal or conservative in our own country. We dont jump down Europe's throat over its definition of conservative. Nobody appointed your country, or Europe in general, as the grand rulers of the universe.

....that belongs to Hideo Kojima

I get that, but it's not liberal in America either, it only became liberal after the Democrats won the 2008 election and wanted to implement it. The GOP establishment had generally supported an individual mandate based healthcare plan to cover more people through the 2000s and a lot of establishment Republicans used Romneycare as a perfect example of a successful Republican healthcare reform using that framework. As soon as a Democrat was in the White House and thought their idea was a good idea suddenly it was "liberal" and they went into mindless opposition mode.

I'm not dictating to America what is and isn't liberal to Americans, I'm trying to tell you that opposition to Obamacare was because of who was proposing it, not because it was it's a fundamentally liberal (in the sense of what Americans understand to be "liberal") idea.

Also, I'm not European.

ten.to.ten:
As soon as a Democrat was in the White House and thought their idea was a good idea suddenly it was "liberal" and they went into mindless opposition mode.

Not to mention it wasn't simply a good idea. It was the compromise (instead of MediCare buy-in) of a compromise (instead of Public Option) of a compromise (instead of Single Payer). Progressives and Liberals often attack Obama for not fighting hard enough on Liberal priorities such as healthcare and civil liberties (or outright fight against them when it comes to the Drone War and the treatment of whistleblowers and the like) and quite a few actually consider his "those fucking retarded Liberals"-administration to be rather distant from Liberal and Progressive views.

As always it's a question of perspective, but you, @Ryotknife, don't hold the "American perspective" because there isn't one, there are different American perspectives. A lot of Liberals and Progressives don't agree with you and you are not the sole arbiter of what is Liberal by "American standards". You have an American standard but it's not the American standard.

ten.to.ten:

Ryotknife:
by European standards, it might not be liberal. That doesnt mean it isnt liberal to us. By AMERICAN standards it is liberal, and since the context of the situation is an issue inside of America, that is all that matters.

Hell, there are even places inside of the US where the conservative-liberal spectrum is different from the overall american one. For example, here in New York State, conservative republican often means moderate Democrat or a centralist.

Anything that smells like universal healthcare is considered liberal. Anything that involves banning guns is considered to be liberal. If those things are not considered liberal in your country THAT IS FINE, but dont dictate to us what we can or can not consider liberal or conservative in our own country. We dont jump down Europe's throat over its definition of conservative. Nobody appointed your country, or Europe in general, as the grand rulers of the universe.

....that belongs to Hideo Kojima

I get that, but it's not liberal in America either, it only became liberal after the Democrats won the 2008 election and wanted to implement it. The GOP establishment had generally supported an individual mandate based healthcare plan to cover more people through the 2000s and a lot of establishment Republicans used Romneycare as a perfect example of a successful Republican healthcare reform using that framework. As soon as a Democrat was in the White House and thought their idea was a good idea suddenly it was "liberal" and they went into mindless opposition mode.

I'm not dictating to America what is and isn't liberal to Americans, I'm trying to tell you that opposition to Obamacare was because of who was proposing it, not because it was it's a fundamentally liberal (in the sense of what Americans understand to be "liberal") idea.

Also, I'm not European.

It is a bit more complicated than that.

For example, it was a Conservative who pushed the nation's strictest gun control laws in NY years ago. Doesnt mean that gun control is now a conservative agenda.

As for Mitt Romney.... The guy flip flopped all over the place (another reason i didnt vote for him). He is not exactly a great study on the mindset of a party or ideology.

Skeleon:

ten.to.ten:
As soon as a Democrat was in the White House and thought their idea was a good idea suddenly it was "liberal" and they went into mindless opposition mode.

Not to mention it wasn't simply a good idea. It was the compromise (instead of MediCare buy-in) of a compromise (instead of Public Option) of a compromise (instead of Single Payer). Progressives and Liberals often attack Obama for not fighting hard enough on Liberal priorities such as healthcare and civil liberties (or outright fight against them when it comes to the Drone War and the treatment of whistleblowers and the like) and quite a few actually consider his "those fucking retarded Liberals"-administration to be rather distant from Liberal and Progressive views.

As always it's a question of perspective, but you, @Ryotknife, don't hold the "American perspective" because there isn't one, there are different American perspectives. A lot of Liberals and Progressives don't agree with you and you are not the sole arbiter of what is Liberal by "American standards". You have an American standard but it's not the American standard.

well goly, you mean there are various degrees of extreme left and right wing ideologies? Gee wiz, batman :)! There are conservatives who attack people whom the populace consider as conservative for not being conservative enough, hardly surprising. Americans never agree on anything, not even that statement! but there is still an american perspective. It is not entirely accurate, no, but anything involving americans as a whole is in general never accurate.

Also, im not the one who is deciding that Obamacare is considered liberal, but rather the American populace. It is painted by the general media (not just Fox news) as a liberal leaning policy.

Ryotknife:
Yes, because anything that involves forcing people to pay an additional tax certainly sounds conservative....wait...

You mean the policy which requires you to take personal responsibility or face a penalty (in the form of a tax) to avoid "moochers" on the system by using a free market framework? Hell, the tax's sole purpose was to provide an economic incentive to purchase insurance.

You can claim it wasn't conservative, but the policy trail leads right to conservative think tanks and policy principles.

which is funny, because you missed this nugget. In particular the last line.

"The 60% saying they would vote "for" the assault weapons proposal is higher than the 44% support Gallup found with a similar measure in December that described assault weapons as "semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles." Also, the current wording reminds respondents that this would be a renewal of a law that existed previously.

Because there was a law that existed previously and it was particularly well known.

At the same time, the 54% currently voting for limiting gun magazines to no more than 10 rounds is less than the 62% Gallup found in December when describing this as banning "the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips that can contain more than 10 bullets." Thus, it appears that attitudes are somewhat variable on these gun control issues, depending on nuances in how the proposals are described."

The Dems are being deliberately misleading with the term Assault weapons. With the way that they discribe them it comes off as automatic assault rifles, which most people would be against. Hell I would be against that. They always allusion assault weapons to military grade hardware not, for example, a shotgun with a pistol grip....

Which is why the ban bills are filled with exceptions that would explicitly not be covered by the law, such as the 157 specified as exempt from the 2013 proposed law.

The media also changes Assault weapon and assault rifle interchangably, even though assault rifles have been banned for 30 years.

If you're fighting a battle on which words journalists should use to describe something, I find that to be an acknowledgement that you are have a weaker position generally.

You might want to do some basic statistical research before you start spouting what is liberal or conservative in the US as well.

oh yes, i forget that Europeans clearly understand America better than Americans. Dear lord the arrogance is astounding. This reminds me of the LAPD thread where the american posters universally described the LAPD as corrupt whereas the European posters said they were not corrupt. I think we know the LAPD better than you do.

But you Americans feel totally fine calling our countries socialist hellscapes and deriding our economic and political systems that, unlike your system, is actually getting shit done (even if the austerity is being proven to not work) as opposed to the suicide-pact politics that would normally make your system a joke if it wasn't causing disastrous economic consequences both domestically and abroad.

And until you get off the "America is the greatest country in the world and should be the model all ascribe to" high horse, you're in no position yell about "grand rulers of the universe"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA OH MY GAWD! did you seriously just type that on the ESCAPIST of all places? The amount of American dick waving on this forum pales, PALES by comparison to the amount of European dickwaving and America bashing. You guys (and by that i dont mean the European governments, but rather its people) bash America EXPOTENTIALLY more than we bash the Middle East, let alone Europe. Hell, your post alone proves my point. Anytime USA comes up in a topic there are literally scores of posters exclaiming how barbaric and backwards we are, even when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Meanwhile, most of the posters that bash a European nation on these forums are (GASP!) other Europeans. Hell, MOST of the American posters on here are pretty harsh on the USA themselves.

Ahh...thanks i really needed a good laugh. I dont have a problem with any European nation or its people, just that ones that decree themselves as some sort of expert on everything American

These last chunks are the ultimate reason why you get so much crap. It's the "I know better than you because I live here" fallacy, and fails to recognize the value and perspective of an outside party. It also ignores those, such as myself, who have lived in and have dealings with the US and pretends that we provide no additional insight into your culture that can be difficult to discern when you've been brought up in that culture.

And if your current posting attitude continues, I have little doubt you will be visited by the same fate that befell the prior posters who did the "American dick waving."

The Gentleman:

You can claim it wasn't conservative, but the policy trail leads right to conservative think tanks and policy principles.

and the politician who pushed the nations strictest gun control laws in 2000's in NYS was a conservative. Are you going to claim that strict gun control is now a conservative agenda?

"The 60% saying they would vote "for" the assault weapons proposal is higher than the 44% support Gallup found with a similar measure in December that described assault weapons as "semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles." Also, the current wording reminds respondents that this would be a renewal of a law that existed previously.
Because there was a law that existed previously and it was particularly well known.

Which is why the ban bills are filled with exceptions that would explicitly not be covered by the law, such as the 157 specified as exempt from the 2013 proposed law.

And yet, that is not how the it is being presented to the public.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/27/assault-weapons-ban-subject-of-senate-hearing/

The VERY FIRST LINE.

"Supporters and opponents of a bill banning military-style assault weapons debated the merits of once again banning the weapons at an emotionally charged hearing Wednesday"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/27/assault-weapon-ban-senate-hearings-live
"The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 would ban 157 kinds of "military-style" assault weapons"

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/27/senate-hearing-on-assault-weapons-ban-becomes-testy-and-emotional/
"Sen. Feinstein's ban would rid the use of 160 military-style firearms, including semiautomatic rifles or pistols with ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds and have specific military-style features such as pistol grips, grenade launchers or rocket launchers."

btw, those were literally the first three results.

(also the bill is trying to ban 157 weapons, not exemption on 157 weapons. A minor note really, but just thought I should clarify)

If you're fighting a battle on which words journalists should use to describe something, I find that to be an acknowledgement that you are have a weaker position generally.

when Obama was up for his first term, a few media outlets would "accidently" keep calling him Osama over and over again. Yes, how you phrase something can paint a person's perspective. In this case, the Dems and media are associating "assault weapons" with military grade hardware, which is something that most people will agree that civilians shouldnt have. They are being purposely misleading. That poll that you showed proves my point. They even admitted that how the question was phrased influenced the results. It is just like the thread awhile ago that said most high schoolers think rape is okay.

These last chunks are the ultimate reason why you get so much crap. It's the "I know better than you because I live here" fallacy, and fails to recognize the value and perspective of an outside party. It also ignores those, such as myself, who have lived in and have dealings with the US and pretends that we provide no additional insight into your culture that can be difficult to discern when you've been brought up in that culture.

And if your current posting attitude continues, I have little doubt you will be visited by the same fate that befell the prior posters who did the "American dick waving."

You can provide insight, but it doesnt automatically override an americans perspective just because you are on the outside. I can provide insight on what the South is like after living there a few years, but im not going to tell a Southerner who lived there his whole life that his view of the south is wrong either.

Are you going to tell me you know more about my hometown than I do? Are you going to tell me you know more about my family than i do? It is entirely possible that you do, but you have going to have to bring proof.

I get crap because i dont immediately postrate myself to the liberals on this site as moral gods. I call out all sides on their crap. republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, and americans. I think blind loyalty is dangerous. Granted, I really dont need to bash republicans or americans on this site as generally everything that can be said about it has already been said by about a dozen different posters. most people that are not a liberal on this site get crap.

In fact, truth be told i probably bash my country more than most posters. I dont have to, of course.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked