E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-15-2013, 01:09 PM   #21
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 108
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Rand Paul's stance on all of this is pretty good; why is government even allowed to have a say in this?
I've never quite understoon this, some, well most to be honest, Republicans who on the one hand espouse freedom, individualism and escaping from under some oppressive government yet in the next breath have no compunction about interjecting, by dint of law and punishment, the heavy hand of government to arbitrate and dictate our most personal and private aspects of our lives. Many of these are basically trying to interject and interpose a veiled or not so veiled theocracy into our national civil life (DOMA), never mind the First Amendment of the Constitution they declare such stringent fealty to.

I wish more GOP/TPers would espouse the same sanctity of the private bedroom as they do the sanctity of the corporate boardroom.

While I dont' agree with Rand Paul on a whole lot, I think he's basically right here in that government should have little say in this realm and what say it does have should be unbiased with regard to gender.

I think the French have it right in that the government officiates over a civil union, say over at the local courthouse that morning, while couples are then free to sanctify their union however they see fit by whatever faith institution they subscribe to, say at the local church that afternoon. Call the civil union just that and the faith based sanctification a marriage just to keep it clear.

As for Portman's announcement, good, I'm glad he did, I think it was the right thing to do, if belatedly. We should actually congratulate, not chide, Portman for publicly supporting his son and subsequently gay marriage rather than trying to distance himself or sweep the situation under the rug.
But hey, better late than never.

I guess my one dismay is that it is only after a deeply personal involvement that too many GOP/TPers come around to a more caring and less judgemental, and prejudgiced, position. When its "them," a harsh, cold judgementalism. When its suddenly one of their own, their own family, sudden conversion to warm empathy, caring and understanding. I guess when your beliefs are centered narrowly around self and individual achievement, empathy is often hard to find. It never means anything to too many republicans until it affects them personally...from unemployment to healthcare to gay rights. We're trying to have a society here...can you people please think of others BEFORE you are directly impacted.

I do think Portman's position regarding leaving the question of marriage equality to the states is wrong. Human rights are human rights--not states' rights. The state's rights approach was tried with slavery and that ended badly (Civil War). DOMA denies protections and benefits to people who share their lives with the same intentions as my wife and partner of 15 years and I do and is clearly unconstitutional as now even many conservatives are arguing, even to the Supreme Court.

Last edited by Rhumb; 03-15-2013 at 01:10 PM.
Rhumb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 01:17 PM   #22
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
I do think Portman's position regarding leaving the question of marriage equality to the states is wrong. Human rights are human rights--not states' rights. The state's rights approach was tried with slavery and that ended badly (Civil War). DOMA denies protections and benefits to people who share their lives with the same intentions as my wife and partner of 15 years and I do and is clearly unconstitutional as now even many conservatives are arguing, even to the Supreme Court.
For those that believe marriage is just a state's rights issue, they should read Loving vs. Virginia.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 01:34 PM   #23
sammk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 378
My Ride: Bone-stock E92
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
He's a Senator of Ohio, whose electorate consists of a very large portion of socially conservative voters. And before that, he was a Representative in a very socially conservative district. He was representing their views.

So now that Portman Jr.'s son has come out of the closet, is it ok for Portman Sr. to not represent the views of the so-called large conservative base in the state he represents? Which is why I say the bigotry is appalling. Whichever way you slice the pie.
__________________


E92 convert. BMW Fanatic.
sammk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 02:09 PM   #24
rapier7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: ATL
Posts: 78
My Ride: Subaru BRZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammk View Post
So now that Portman Jr.'s son has come out of the closet, is it ok for Portman Sr. to not represent the views of the so-called large conservative base in the state he represents? Which is why I say the bigotry is appalling. Whichever way you slice the pie.
The bigotry of Portman or his constituents? You're making your original statement more ambiguous because you latched onto a response directed to another person.

It is the job of Portman to represent his constituents. But obviously even in a conservative district, not everyone has the same views on every issue. So it comes down to discretion. If enough people like his discretion, he gets reelected. If not, he gets ousted.
__________________
http://meta-rhetoric.com - Unfiltered Reality
rapier7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 02:12 PM   #25
SLVR JDM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Work
Posts: 1,526
My Ride: reclining rear seats
BHO didn't originally support gay marriage until his views "evolved" and I see this case as no different.
__________________


** Removed **
SLVR JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 02:17 PM   #26
rapier7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: ATL
Posts: 78
My Ride: Subaru BRZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLVR JDM View Post
BHO didn't originally support gay marriage until his views "evolved" and I see this case as no different.
Yeah, but supporters of the President will say that he probably supported it to begin with and only had to oppose it to win a hard-fought primary and general election and only flipped once it became politically safe to do so as older, more prejudiced voters died out while newer, more socially progressive voters aged in.

Also, Sasha and Malia (probably) aren't lesbians so he came to his views in a more noble way. So nyah.
__________________
http://meta-rhetoric.com - Unfiltered Reality
rapier7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 02:20 PM   #27
217Bimmer
E46Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: not Illinois
Posts: 146
My Ride: 2001 BMW 330i
like having a bunch of people in office who think the earth is flat. pretty embarrassing.
217Bimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 09:21 AM   #28
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,566
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
"Ideological hipsterism"


__________________
NOVAbimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 10:35 AM   #29
sammk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 378
My Ride: Bone-stock E92
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
The bigotry of Portman or his constituents? You're making your original statement more ambiguous because you latched onto a response directed to another person.
The bigotry of Portman, of course, because Portman is the subject of the discussion. I guess his far-right electorate could be faulted for the same reason but that's not what we're talking about in this post. Your lack of intelligence is starting to be a little disconcerting now..

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
It is the job of Portman to represent his constituents. But obviously even in a conservative district, not everyone has the same views on every issue. So it comes down to discretion. If enough people like his discretion, he gets reelected. If not, he gets ousted.
So Portman, once elected, gets to deny basic rights to a certain section of the population to keep another section happy..? Based on his discretion? Now that makes a lot of ethical sense to me.

The issue is not about Portman getting reelected. The issue is about his 'change of heart' and what that says about him and what his ideas have meant for the people he has represented.




Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
He's a Senator of Ohio, whose electorate consists of a very large portion of socially conservative voters. And before that, he was a Representative in a very socially conservative district. He was representing their views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
It is the job of Portman to represent his constituents. But obviously even in a conservative district, not everyone has the same views on every issue. So it comes down to discretion.
If that doesn't smack of ambiguity and equivocity I don't know what does.. You're a funny guy.
__________________


E92 convert. BMW Fanatic.
sammk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 12:48 PM   #30
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Great, now he needs a poor child, so he can empathize with those people, too.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 08:35 PM   #31
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
I've never quite understoon this, some, well most to be honest, Republicans who on the one hand espouse freedom, individualism and escaping from under some oppressive government yet in the next breath have no compunction about interjecting, by dint of law and punishment, the heavy hand of government to arbitrate and dictate our most personal and private aspects of our lives. Many of these are basically trying to interject and interpose a veiled or not so veiled theocracy into our national civil life (DOMA), never mind the First Amendment of the Constitution they declare such stringent fealty to.

I wish more GOP/TPers would espouse the same sanctity of the private bedroom as they do the sanctity of the corporate boardroom.
Republicans trust people to make more socially beneficial choices with their money than the govt would. But they don't trust people to make socially beneficial choices with regards to moral choices (abortion, religion, marriage).

Democrats don't trust people to make socially beneficial choices with their money, so they want to take it away and give it to the govt to spend appropriately. But they think everything else should be fine for people to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
While I dont' agree with Rand Paul on a whole lot, I think he's basically right here in that government should have little say in this realm and what say it does have should be unbiased with regard to gender.

I think the French have it right in that the government officiates over a civil union, say over at the local courthouse that morning, while couples are then free to sanctify their union however they see fit by whatever faith institution they subscribe to, say at the local church that afternoon. Call the civil union just that and the faith based sanctification a marriage just to keep it clear.
As long as the "marriage" isn't legally recognized, no sweat. But the govt has to be consistent for everyone. The argument that gays can have civil unions while straights can have marriage is not acceptable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
As for Portman's announcement, good, I'm glad he did, I think it was the right thing to do, if belatedly. We should actually congratulate, not chide, Portman for publicly supporting his son and subsequently gay marriage rather than trying to distance himself or sweep the situation under the rug.
But hey, better late than never.

I guess my one dismay is that it is only after a deeply personal involvement that too many GOP/TPers come around to a more caring and less judgemental, and prejudgiced, position. When its "them," a harsh, cold judgementalism. When its suddenly one of their own, their own family, sudden conversion to warm empathy, caring and understanding. I guess when your beliefs are centered narrowly around self and individual achievement, empathy is often hard to find. It never means anything to too many republicans until it affects them personally...from unemployment to healthcare to gay rights. We're trying to have a society here...can you people please think of others BEFORE you are directly impacted.

I do think Portman's position regarding leaving the question of marriage equality to the states is wrong. Human rights are human rights--not states' rights. The state's rights approach was tried with slavery and that ended badly (Civil War). DOMA denies protections and benefits to people who share their lives with the same intentions as my wife and partner of 15 years and I do and is clearly unconstitutional as now even many conservatives are arguing, even to the Supreme Court.
Neither party has a monopoly on hypocrisy. Focusing solely on that exhibited by one side is ridiculous.

Any Dem/lib would flip on their gun-control position the moment they were stuck in a situation where they needed a gun to protect themselves or their family, high capacity mags and all.

Gay marriage is not a human rights issue. Marriage is a civil institution, so it's a civil rights issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammk View Post
So now that Portman Jr.'s son has come out of the closet, is it ok for Portman Sr. to not represent the views of the so-called large conservative base in the state he represents? Which is why I say the bigotry is appalling. Whichever way you slice the pie.
People that are voted into political office have obligations that supersede what the majority of their constituents want. A basic principle of this country is that all people have inalienable human rights (not that we have a great track record for defining and sticking to them) that cannot be legislated away by the majority.

It's obviously a bit of a quandary when a politician can't get elected unless he promises to do just that. But obviously that happens on both sides of the aisle all the time.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use