How come forums contain more liberals than the general population does?

[Guy-jin]

I believe she is the only one who has said that. And it doesn't mean it will even happen if she does get into the white house.



If people are going to vote for a candidate for that little blip, they are going to be very disappointed. The Constitution will continue to be debated when we're all dead and buried.


I should have said viable candidates, of which Paul and Kucinich are not.

Italian1, you must stop taking this "ignore points I can't refute" stance on things. It's not conducive to discussion. I stated clearly what Obama, a major candidate, thinks, as well as a succinct summary of the stances of the major candidates in the running as well.

If you think gay rights are a "little blip," you're misinformed. To a great many of us, gays being allowed the same rights that everyone else has in this country is an extremely important issue. And you had better believe that there are quite a few people staunchly on the other side of the issue, who would never vote for someone who was in favor of allowing equal rights for gays.

Of course, there have been many times in the past when this was the case, most notably before the civil rights movement. I, for one, want my country to be the free country I was taught it was when I was a child, when I was told the fight for civil rights was won in the 60s. That, to me, is one of the most important issues facing our country right now, and I'm hardly the only Independent who feels that way.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Civil liberties and equal protection/rights should never be regarded as "little blips."

Civil liberties are little blips for conservatives because conservatives rarely take such issues seriously. It always been a non-issue for them because they can't see any problem. And how could they? They've never been a downtrodden minority, except, of course, in their own minds.

The only oppression conservatives have ever suffered in the US is the litany of make-believe miseries trumped up by right wing radio blowhards...you know, serious stuff like "The War on Christmas" or "Leftist Professors" or "The Liberal Media" or "National Public Radio" or a host of the other usual featherweight bogeymen.

 

[B_Gaylord69]

Conservatives doesn't matter on me....

 

[dreamer20]

And on this forum in particular, a place that's clearly left-leaning because of its very nature, of course a thread praising GWB would receive a negative response, especially given his position regarding gay rights.

His (George W. Bush's) position on gay rights is not that different from anyone else running. I don't know why that keeps being brought up as if it's the only issue a president has to deal with. It's a blip on the radar screen for a president.

I doubt that you forgot that GWB's opposition to gay rights was far from being a "blip" on his radar screen. G.W.B. attempted to have discrimination against gays written into the U.S. constitution:

June 5,2006 from CNN.com/



WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and Senate conservatives renewed their battle Monday to ban same-sex marriage through a constitutional amendment that has a slim chance of passage.

After G.W.Bush proclaimed that "homosexuality is wrong" he made the following comments regarding the proposed amendment:

"I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification, so we can take this issue out of the hands of overreaching judges and put it back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people," Bush said at the White House on Monday.

http://www.lpsg.org/28492-not-over-yet-bush-senators.html

 

[JustAsking]

I doubt that you forgot that GWB's opposition to gay rights was far from being a "blip" on his radar screen. G.W.B. attempted to have discrimination against gays written into the U.S. constitution:

June 5,2006 from CNN.com/



WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and Senate conservatives renewed their battle Monday to ban same-sex marriage through a constitutional amendment that has a slim chance of passage.

After G.W.Bush proclaimed that "homosexuality is wrong" he made the following comments regarding the proposed amendment:

"I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification, so we can take this issue out of the hands of overreaching judges and put it back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people," Bush said at the White House on Monday.

http://www.lpsg.org/28492-not-over-yet-bush-senators.html

We need to get all these enemies of freedom out of power as soon as we can.

 

[DC_DEEP]

OP: There is no answer to your original question until you define what you mean by "liberal" and "conservative." Old-style conservative or new-style? Political, religious, fiscal, or social liberal?

Surely you don't call upholding or defending the Constitution as simply political correctness?

You commie!!! Don't you know that for the current administration, the Constitution is merely a serving suggestion?

Why do you think so many department stores advertised it as a "Holiday"? It offended some 'individuals', who then return the purchase and state that as the reason. Sometimes one has to read between the lines.

A private business may choose to do its marketing as it pleases, right? Or are you saying you think the government forced them to use "holiday" rather than "christmas?" Or better yet, are you saying that you think the government should force private businesses to use "christmas" rather than "holiday" marketing?

I realize he is very unpopular but how many times do we have to hear it? And the Republicans candidates have to distance themselves from him if they want to get in. That's politics.

Just a thought, but perhaps "as many times as it takes for people to understand it?

And someone would be crucified if they posted that Clinton or Obama becoming president would be the downfall of America.

Really? Are you sure about that?

You are being a pain in the ass. :tongue: There are a lot of issues that a president has to deal with. Gay issues are not a top priority for any of the presidential candidates. It was hardly discussed at any of the debates, and the candidates rarely discuss it. Whoever wins the election is going to be dealing with homeland security, foreign policy, immigration, social security, energy, taxes, health care, poverty, etc. Yes, gay rights are going to be a little blip on their radar when you put it up against all of those other issues.

You are absolutely, totally, completely WRONG about that. For most of the republican candidates, it IS a top issue - they are staunchly against gay rights. Either that, or they are liars. I saw the "values voters 'debates'." So, are they just pandering to a huge voting block, or do they really hate homosexuals?

 

[B_Italian1]

The only reason it is an issue at all is because conservatives have made it one. You are right that if a Democrat gets elected President and we have a Democratic majority in the legislature then all the concentration on restricting the civil liberties of some ten percent of the population will disappear.

Bill Clinton = Don't ask, Don't tell-- How quickly people forget. It's just going to disappear overnight if we have a Democrat President and Democratic majority in the legislature? I think not. Read my prior post about what the priorities are for the presidential candidates: poverty, social security, homeland security, etc.

These things are only issues for right wing conservatives and they will go away when the government is no longer pandering to those who want to expand the government into restricting civil rights or wanting to roll back the state of the art of science education to the Middle Ages.

What did Clinton do for civil rights during his 8 years? You're playing the blame game. It will be the same no matter who gets in.

And the last time I looked Freedom = Civil Liberty. Why do you hate that concept so much?

I love that concept. What did the Clinton administration do? What will Hillary, Obama, or Edwards do about civil rights? We shall see.

Italian1, you must stop taking this "ignore points I can't refute" stance on things. It's not conducive to discussion. I stated clearly what Obama, a major candidate, thinks, as well as a succinct summary of the stances of the major candidates in the running as well.

If you think gay rights are a "little blip," you're misinformed.

Read my post about all of the other issues the president as to deal with. It is a blip. It is not at the top of the list of any candidate--not even close. If any of you believe that, you are incredibly naive. All of the candidates want the gay vote, so they pander a little here and there.

And Obama invites ex-gay singer Donnie McClurkin to perform for him.
I'm sure there are plenty of other singers he could have invited.

To a great many of us, gays being allowed the same rights that everyone else has in this country is an extremely important issue. And you had better believe that there are quite a few people staunchly on the other side of the issue, who would never vote for someone who was in favor of allowing equal rights for gays.

What exactly do you think Obama, Clinton, or Edwards are going to do for gays?

Of course, there have been many times in the past when this was the case, most notably before the civil rights movement. I, for one, want my country to be the free country I was taught it was when I was a child, when I was told the fight for civil rights was won in the 60s. That, to me, is one of the most important issues facing our country right now, and I'm hardly the only Independent who feels that way.

Sadly, we will never have complete freedom now will we? Black people are still fighting for rights and the 60's was 40 years ago.

You are absolutely, totally, completely WRONG about that. For most of the republican candidates, it IS a top issue - they are staunchly against gay rights. Either that, or they are liars. I saw the "values voters 'debates'." So, are they just pandering to a huge voting block, or do they really hate homosexuals?

lol How is it a top issue? Again, gay rights are hardly mentioned by any of the Democrats of the Republicans. Hate is a strong word. None of the candidates hate homosexuals. They gay vote is very important, but who knows if it will make or break the election. All gays should vote. Everyone should vote.

Log Cabin Republicans

 

[DC_DEEP]

Bill Clinton = Don't ask, Don't tell-- How quickly people forget. It's just going to disappear overnight if we have a Democrat President and Democratic majority in the legislature? I think not. Read my prior post about what the priorities are for the presidential candidates: poverty, social security, homeland security, etc.

FWIW, Clinton did not draft that policy; he (wrongly) supported it as a compromise. And its implementation is nothing like what its authors claimed it would be.

lol How is it a top issue? Again, gay rights are hardly mentioned by any of the Democrats of the Republicans. Hate is a strong word. None of the candidates hate homosexuals. They gay vote is very important, but who knows if it will make or break the election. All gays should vote. Everyone should vote.

Log Cabin Republicans

I'm familiar with the log cabin republicans, thank you very much.

Watch this clip, beginning to end, and answer the questions I asked you before, if you don't mind too terribly.

republican candidates

 

[Guy-jin]

What exactly do you think Obama, Clinton, or Edwards are going to do for gays?

Quite specifically and most importantly, choose the next supreme court judge. Or do you think gay rights won't be a "blip" on their radar when they make that decision?

Also, you are confused about the argument at hand. JustAsking already explained to you why gay marriage isn't a big topic of debate--because the Republicans generally agree amongst themselves and the Democrats generally agree amongst themselves, so there's nothing for them to debate. That doesn't mean it's a "blip" on their radar, and certainly doesn't mean it's a "blip" to the voters.

Plain and simple, you're wrong.

Sadly, we will never have complete freedom now will we? Black people are still fighting for rights and the 60's was 40 years ago.

We do what we can. I'm really not sure what your point is with this statement, besides making it seem like you've given up, and that's why you think trying to obtain equality for all, something granted to us by our Constitution, isn't worth thinking about.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Quite specifically and most importantly, choose the next supreme court judge.

I've tried repeatedly to explain this concept on this forum, but it's pointless. There are just some people out there who don't understand the office of president, and who just have no concept of where the power of the office manifests itself.

Blaming Clinton for DADT is pretty ignorant, actually. Blaming Bush for our current chief justice of the SCOTUS is a more appropriate finger-pointing exercise.

The president's views are unimportant as far as direct policymaking or lawmaking; his views are exceptionally important in determining whom he appoints to various policymaking and lawmaking posts.

Unless I missed it in skimming the posts, though, I still haven't seen the OP clarify what he means by "liberals."

 

[B_Italian1]

FWIW, Clinton did not draft that policy; he (wrongly) supported it as a compromise. And its implementation is nothing like what its authors claimed it would be.

Whatever!

Watch this clip, beginning to end, and answer the questions I asked you before, if you don't mind too terribly.

republican candidates

DC! lmao What a train wreck. And only 3700 views in 7 months.

Quite specifically and most importantly, choose the next supreme court judge. Or do you think gay rights won't be a "blip" on their radar when they make that decision?

Also, you are confused about the argument at hand. JustAsking already explained to you why gay marriage isn't a big topic of debate--because the Republicans generally agree amongst themselves and the Democrats generally agree amongst themselves, so there's nothing for them to debate. That doesn't mean it's a "blip" on their radar, and certainly doesn't mean it's a "blip" to the voters.

Plain and simple, you're wrong.

That's why it's important for everyone to exercise their right to vote. I highly doubt that anything will differ in the gay marriage debate if a Democrat is in office.

We do what we can. I'm really not sure what your point is with this statement, besides making it seem like you've given up, and that's why you think trying to obtain equality for all, something granted to us by our Constitution, isn't worth thinking about.

No, I don't give up, and of course it's worth thinking about. The supreme court judge.

Unless I missed it in skimming the posts, though, I still haven't seen the OP clarify what he means by "liberals."

That's why I'm abandoning this ship. :banghead2:

 

[DC_DEEP]

Whatever!

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. If you are implying that Bill Clinton drafted the DADT policy, well, I don't really know what to say to you. He did not. Of course, endorsing the policy as a compromise made a liar out of him (he should not have made the promise to entirely lift the ban in the first place.)

DC! lmao What a train wreck. And only 3700 views in 7 months.

I agree; but my point is, the fact that those candidates (repubs only?!?!) attended that conference in the first place, plus the content of their answers to the stupid question, is evidence enough (at least for me) that denying homosexuals civil rights IS important to them - or they are lying to the fundies just to get votes. Either way, that's about as slimy and un-American as you can get. Business as usual, yes. But still, slimy and un-American.

That's why it's important for everyone to exercise their right to vote. I highly doubt that anything will differ in the gay marriage debate if a Democrat is in office.

Sadly and unsurprisingly true. The democrat candidates are no less pandering than the repub candidates.

 

[B_Italian1]

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. If you are implying that Bill Clinton drafted the DADT policy, well, I don't really know what to say to you. He did not. Of course, endorsing the policy as a compromise made a liar out of him (he should not have made the promise to entirely lift the ban in the first place.)

That's it in a nutshell.

I agree; but my point is, the fact that those candidates (repubs only?!?!) attended that conference in the first place, plus the content of their answers to the stupid question, is evidence enough (at least for me) that denying homosexuals civil rights IS important to them - or they are lying to the fundies just to get votes. Either way, that's about as slimy and un-American as you can get. Business as usual, yes. But still, slimy and un-American.

It was laughable, and the moderator.

Sadly and unsurprisingly true. The democrat candidates are no less pandering than the repub candidates.

And I'll bet many of them will say more or less what those guys were saying.......behind closed doors.

 

[DC_DEEP]

And I'll bet many of them will say more or less what those guys were saying.......behind closed doors.

Sad but true. I just can't understand why they even care, much less spend so much time worrying about it.

The truly puzzling part of it is the logic of most self-proclaimed conservatives. They claim that my right to privacy and free exercise of religion deprives them of their right to free exercise of religion.

 

[B_Italian1]

Sad but true. I just can't understand why they even care, much less spend so much time worrying about it.

The truly puzzling part of it is the logic of most self-proclaimed conservatives. They claim that my right to privacy and free exercise of religion deprives them of their right to free exercise of religion.

It's not just the self proclaimed conservatives. My comment was directed at the Democrats.

And I'll bet many of them(Democrats) will say more or less what those guys(Republicans) were saying.......behind closed doors.

 

[THEDUDER]

because passive nerds tend to be more liberal than people who actually engage other people outside of the internet?

 

[JustAsking]

Bill Clinton = Don't ask, Don't tell-- How quickly people forget. It's just going to disappear overnight if we have a Democrat President and Democratic majority in the legislature? I think not. Read my prior post about what the priorities are for the presidential candidates: poverty, social security, homeland security, etc.



What did Clinton do for civil rights during his 8 years? You're playing the blame game. It will be the same no matter who gets in.



I love that concept. What did the Clinton administration do? What will Hillary, Obama, or Edwards do about civil rights? We shall see.



Read my post about all of the other issues the president as to deal with. It is a blip. It is not at the top of the list of any candidate--not even close. If any of you believe that, you are incredibly naive. All of the candidates want the gay vote, so they pander a little here and there.

And Obama invites ex-gay singer Donnie McClurkin to perform for him.
I'm sure there are plenty of other singers he could have invited.



What exactly do you think Obama, Clinton, or Edwards are going to do for gays?



Sadly, we will never have complete freedom now will we? Black people are still fighting for rights and the 60's was 40 years ago.



lol How is it a top issue? Again, gay rights are hardly mentioned by any of the Democrats of the Republicans. Hate is a strong word. None of the candidates hate homosexuals. They gay vote is very important, but who knows if it will make or break the election. All gays should vote. Everyone should vote.

Log Cabin Republicans

You missed my point Italian. My point is that rights are already uniformly distributed amongst all Americans by the Constitution. Democrats know that, so they don't feel a need to go out and sponsor gay rights legislation unless they are trying to undo the damaging rights restrictions that conservatives put into place.

 

[ZOS23xy]

Gay rights is analogous to rights for blacks as was the rights for women.

If you examine it carefully, without prejudice, you'd see its all the same. Why deny rights to people because of differences.

People are afraid to speak their minds, because the world has swung toward the intolereant. I'm thinking Berlin in the late 1920's. We should watch what is going on.

Answering "whatever!" to a comment that you quoted to deal with, is intellectually lazy.

The whole aspects of the now bubbling presidential races are, "who sounds less asinine"....

Geez, a leap year too. An extra day of tarring one another.

 

[Damian Johnson]

Percentage wise forums have a vast majority of liberals. Explanation?

1) Because forums are about debate - and liberal people are by their nature, open minded and like listening to other views, defending and debating their own.

2) LPSG is a good example - not only are we liberal minded on here, but we are also naughty cock and pussy craved sluts

3) People who are not liberal, and have closed minds and want to dictate and impose their beliefs on other people would not join or have a forum

Hence you dont see the TLPSG - "Taliban Large Penis Support Group"
or the
B-LLPSG "Bin-Laden Large Penis Support Group"
or the
AHFLPSG "Adolf Hitler Followers Large Penis Support Group"

:biggrin1:

 

[viking1]

Gay rights is analogous to rights for blacks as was the rights for women.

If you examine it carefully, without prejudice, you'd see its all the same. Why deny rights to people because of differences.

People are afraid to speak their minds, because the world has swung toward the intolereant. I'm thinking Berlin in the late 1920's. We should watch what is going on.

Answering "whatever!" to a comment that you quoted to deal with, is intellectually lazy.

The whole aspects of the now bubbling presidential races are, "who sounds less asinine"....

Geez, a leap year too. An extra day of tarring one another.

Exactly!