Why do people hate Americans?

Originally posted by Raisen
I see. I didn't understand because I never saw it that way and personally know this is not the truth, rather it is what libs run on to get votes. I can agree on the non-straight part, but nothing else there. but thanks for clearing it up.

So, you do believe there is a difference between Reps and Dems in terms of gay rights issues, but not in terms of women's right or issues primarily impacting minority communities?

Like, just clarify, you don't think they have different policies on abortion or access to women's health facilities? You don't think they differ on immigration reform, racial profiling laws or voter registry policy?

I would just suggest, that if we look at the policies enacted at the state or even more local levels, we can see massive differences between the parties on all of those issues...

Originally posted by Oliver North
if you are a woman, non-straight, or racial minority, there are very large differences between the American political parties, though they are very similar on issues of security, the environment, the war on drugs to a large degree.

This is what you originally posted. Since when did illegal immigration become a racial minority problem? It's about breaking the law, not race, at least to me. Abortion is anti-woman? not what it's intended to be in my eyes, and I believe in abortion as an option.

What you are arguing now is way different that what you are arguing in the quote above. It's catchy to attach some labels like anti-minority or anti-woman, but that's not what it really is.IMO at least

actually, my point was that there are major differences between the parties, you seem to be going out of your way to take offense to it somehow.

EDIT: like, whether or not you would classify these issues as "women's issues" or "minority issues" (and I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that they shouldn't be classified that way), you would recognize major differences between the Dems and Reps in terms of policy, right?

They all still serve the elite.

Originally posted by Oliver North
actually, my point was that there are major differences between the parties, you seem to be going out of your way to take offense to it somehow.

EDIT: like, whether or not you would classify these issues as "women's issues" or "minority issues" (and I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that they shouldn't be classified that way), you would recognize major differences between the Dems and Reps in terms of policy, right?

there are major differences when they're campaigning; yet very little changes once they're in office or holding a seat. it's all bullshit to me.

Originally posted by Raisen
there are major differences when they're campaigning; yet very little changes once they're in office or holding a seat. it's all bullshit to me.

So you're saying that you think Bush was as likely to sign the repeal of DADT as Obama?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you're saying that you think Bush was as likely to sign the repeal of DADT as Obama?

no, he wasn't as likely. in the grand scheme of things DADT is small potatoes IMO. it's a good thing; but it considered one of the very little changes IMO. people won't like me saying that but Don't Ask Don't Tell is not as wide reaching or ominous as our financial situation

Originally posted by Raisen
no, he wasn't as likely. in the grand scheme of things DADT is small potatoes IMO. it's a good thing; but it considered one of the very little changes IMO. people won't like me saying that but Don't Ask Don't Tell is not as wide reaching or ominous as our financial situation

You're clearly moving the goalposts here. They enact very different policy decisions on certain subjects, end of story, DADT affects the entire population of the United States. The fact that you don't care about those subjects is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're clearly moving the goalposts here. They enact very different policy decisions on certain subjects, end of story, DADT affects the entire population of the United States. The fact that you don't care about those subjects is irrelevant.

I agree that I did move the goalposts, to include more Americans. DADT affects just a sliver of society.
What is your point exactly?

Originally posted by Raisen
I agree that I did move the goalposts, to include more Americans. DADT affects just a sliver of society.
What is your point exactly?

What about the healthcare debate? It literally affects every single American and the two parties have completely different stances on it (and not just when campaigning, but right now).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The fact that you don't care about those subjects is irrelevant.

it actually highlights my initial point to mr. parker:

not being homosexual, they don't feel the differences between the parties on those issues are important, whereas someone who is homosexual really doesn't have that opportunity.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What about the healthcare debate? It literally affects every single American and the two parties have completely different stances on it (and not just when campaigning, but right now).

Universal healthcare isn't exclusively a Dem thing. Many Republicans, not very influential ones, admittedly, have proposed different versions of universal healthcare. The Republicans people are more familiar with have been pandering to special interest groups like the tea party. they have been doing this to contrast themselves against Obama during times of low approval ratings and to create dissonance. once again, this leads back to strategic politicking.

of course this is just my analysis; but this is the way I see it. it all leads to politicking and I find myself not believing either side is very devoted to anything other than to make a name for themselves or fulfill a promise to constituents. Simple party devotion.

ok, lets make this really easy then. Look at abortion. Are there differences in laws related to abortion in states run by Democrats compared to those run by Republicans, and do these differences reflect the policies described by the major parties?

Originally posted by Oliver North
it actually highlights my initial point to mr. parker:

not being homosexual, they don't feel the differences between the parties on those issues are important, whereas someone who is homosexual really doesn't have that opportunity.

it's not about that to me. the homosexual community is just a sliver of the American community.

Do you care about the Hmong that were left in Laos? they were promised to be brought back here after helping in the Vietnam war. They are left to the slaughter still. I guess their families representation in the U.S. isn't significant enough for anybody to care....is that right?

look at the history of the Dem support of the homosexual community. not very many cared when they were closeted. then some rich people were coming out of the closet and dems realized that they had a powerful voting base. now they only care because the homosexual community represents almost ten percent of the population. ask yourself why they would care about them and not other obscure groups out there.

I think I made a mistake in not making my stance clear. i'm mostly arguing the spirit of this. dems pander to the groups that the repubs shun(for the most part). it's not out of respect or care; it's just for the votes.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, lets make this really easy then. Look at abortion. Are there differences in laws related to abortion in states run by Democrats compared to those run by Republicans, and do these differences reflect the policies described by the major parties?

make it easy? really? i'm just not giving you the answer you like. i'm probably not going to. i'm just going to write the truth

Originally posted by Raisen
it's not about that to me. the homosexual community is just a sliver of the American community.

Do you care about the Hmong that were left in Laos? they were promised to be brought back here after helping in the Vietnam war. They are left to the slaughter still. I guess their families representation in the U.S. isn't significant enough for anybody to care....is that right?

yes, exactly, that is my point. As someone who isn't Hmong in Laos, that is not a very significant political issue in my life. I have the opportunity, or privilege, to not have to follow that issue if I don't want to. If I were a Hmong living in Laos, it would probably be a much more salient political issue.

Now, lets say, that Democrats have a stance that is objectively more progressive about Hmong patriation, whereas the Republicans have the more restrictive view (you can interchange them for the purposes of this example, I'm just going to compare it to abortion below and it works easier this way). For me, as someone who doesn't have any meaningful stance on the issue, I can easily say there is no difference between the parties, because maybe there isn't on issues I feel are politically important (and in the first post of this discussion named issues that they are essentially identical on). The Hmong individual doesn't have that luxury. Regardless of their political motivation or beliefs, their lives will be dramatically altered if one party is elected over the other, and therefore, the differences between the parties on this single issue becomes very important, no matter what your stance.

Now, in the case of abortion, we have such stances and policy. It isn't just campaign promises, almost to a state, those run by democrats have much more progressive policies about women's reproductive rights and those run by republicans more restrictive. Whether you agree with the Republicans or the Democrats, there are objective differences between how they govern on the issue of abortion (and many other reproductive issues - sex ed, contraceptives, etc). However, as men, we are in a position where, much like we were with the Hmong, we have no intrinsic horse in the race. Sure, if someone is religiously motivated they may make this an issue for themselves, but for women, policies that impact their reproductive rights and health tautologically impact them. Much like the Hmong, they cannot be granted the luxury of not being interested.

Like, I think you think someone is criticizing you for having certain political beliefs... Even my post to mr. parker was more a joke pointing out why he may be biased to seeing no differences between the parties. Like, I don't vote based on women's reproductive rights issues, nor would women vote based on access to prostate cancer screenings, simply because the issue wouldn't resonate with a lot of their lives. Admittedly, most medical issues, especially ones like abortion, interest many people for reasons beyond gender, and certainly women's reproductive rights are not the strongest driving factor of women's political decisions, it is that they are intrinsically impacted by policies on these matters. This isn't a moral issue, it is simply stating exactly what you did concerning the Hmong. And like you pointed out with the Hmong, we would be better served as a people if we are sometimes confronted with the biases in perspective we each have based on our experiences.

Originally posted by Raisen
I think I made a mistake in not making my stance clear. i'm mostly arguing the spirit of this. dems pander to the groups that the repubs shun(for the most part). it's not out of respect or care; it's just for the votes.

meaning they are different, then?

I'm glad we agree on that too.

Originally posted by Raisen
make it easy? really? i'm just not giving you the answer you like. i'm probably not going to. i'm just going to write the truth

like, what do you think I'm asking you? I don't care about your stance on abortion, I want you to acknowledge that Democrats and Republicans differ on the issue.

no criticism for either of us Oliver. the further this goes on, the more confused I am. I think there's just a misunderstanding. and yes, the two parties are CURRENTLY polar opposites.

cool, it happens

Originally posted by Raisen
no criticism for either of us Oliver. the further this goes on, the more confused I am. I think there's just a misunderstanding. and yes, the two parties are CURRENTLY polar opposites.

Who work for the same people.

Originally posted by Turkey Pie
Who work for the same people.