As a group, which do you think is more critical of their own party and/or politicians?
Republicans (the Tea Partiers) they hate everyone but Sarah Palin & Ronald Reagan
Convertives by far
Conservatives are able to admit our faults. We acknowledge when a politician's motives aren't true and judge them carefully.
Most Liberals, if not sociopathic, are likely to be so indoctrinated & devoid of critical thought, they just tow the line. It's akin to terminal mental disorders that used to require a lobotomy to ease the vicious nature of primordial senselessness.
The fact that a majority of liberals still support Obama even after the NDAA, M.P.Act, NSA spying+lying, drone strikes, and further warmongering- etc is what made me put my answer.
However Neocons are excessively protective of Bush as well, remember.
Many Conservatives are actually moving towards Libertarianism now, since Libertarians don't (typically) support crap like gay marriage bans, drug bans, US warmongering, etc- the type of crap that Neocons started which messed up other Conservatives.
The tea party actually started under Bush.
@3gun but so did NSA spying, the Patriot Act, Operation Fast And Furious- etc. :/ No good presidents these past two or three or so decades
The Tea Party is the new religious right. They've been dormant since 1988
The Teamsters and other liberal organizations were a significant part of the tea party. Religion had nothing to do with it.
Several conservatives have left politics or switched parties because of the backlash they received for "stepping out of line" by publicly approving of something Obama did, being pro choice or believing climate science...
Climate science. That's a new one.
Liberals March in locked step
This is a very tough question. Both libs and cons seem very protective of their own.
I've seen MANY conservatives that are critical of Bush.
Definitely Conservatives. Liberals can't move left of Stalin fast enough.
I'm very critical of republicans. I think the morons who are against marriage equality need to remove their heads from their butts.
I agree with you, but in all honesty, we have way bigger issues to deal with than that.
And I understated that pretty heavily.
Neocons are typically painful to deal with, regardless of party. (Unless you are a Neocon as well lel)
@gamerguy217 I'm Libertarian t(._.t)
(Lel, no hard feelings)
At least Conservatives and Libertarians know the definition of marriage, its history and overall impact on society.
You can't redefine something that is generations upon generations old. Your "equality" violates most contract laws.
I'm republican. I still think that just because 2 people are the same gender that doesn't mean they shouldn't get the same privileges of 2 people of different genders. That is moronic.
TheCourt is correct in what he said about the definition of marriage. But I don't see the issue as any concern if mine. If a state wants to broaden how it recognizes that contract, it can. It shouldn't be forced to tho.
Same goes with religious institutions. Separation of church and state, so whether or not the state recognizes that shouldn't make a difference there.
The states aren't being forced to, people are voting to allow it. That's how a democracy works. The problem is, some people hold to their "traditions" even at the expense of others.
And as for the this absurd notion that a gay couple can force a business to do business with them, it is that business's right to refuse service. They don't, and shouldn't have to serve everyone or anyone for that matter.
When the Feds force states to recognize it, yes they are forced to. I don't know where you're coming from saying that they aren't.
I understand that the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law as well, but unless that state has a law requiring them to recognize all marriage contracts (or a business has a policy requiring service to all), then there is...
....no law from which they are not being protected equally. Unless such policies are in place, then the matter should be up to the states to recognize, and service should be at the business's discretion.
We are a Republic 1st, with democracy function 2nd. My state voted to ban same-sex marriage, yet our weak and feeble courts unconstitutionally overturned the people's votes.
Equal protection does not mean "equality"!
The gay community, which is quite small but very loud, didn't do itself any favors, by bastardizing the sanctity of marriage. They weakened it as an institution and were tools for the most vile of Liberals goals: the destruction of religious Liberty.
Much like most Liberal causes, this one wasn't thought all the way through. Now no one has a valid contract or sacred covenant of marriage, thanks to the shortsighted dim-witted moronic flailing of the overly sensitive & falsely entitled few.
^See this is what I mean. It never does any good forcing a group of people. All it does is breed resentment.
Unless said policies are in place, it has nothing to do with the federal constitution & should be a state issue.
You are arguing 2 totally different points. I have no issue at all with business denying service to whoever they want. It's their money they are losing. If they want to be dumb and not serve gay people,those gay people will spend that money elsewhere
And the "sanctity" of marriage was ruined along time ago. The divorce rate is 50%, that shit isn't a joke. Again, if your traditions are at the expense of people, they need to change. Why shouldn't 2 men be allowed the same tax advantages of
Exactly. And yeah, I know. But both points tend to come up, so I was covering both to begin with.
1 man and 1 woman? Explain that to me and I could maybe see your point. Don't use the bible or any religious text as proof though.
And guys, the issue isn't "why shouldn't they..." Because it's an issue to be voted on by the states. Marriage isn't a constitutional right.
And I already addressed the equal protection clause & how it may or may not apply to a particular state.
So "the sanctity of marriage" and "but they should be able to" are both equally constitutionally irrelevant.
Why are you talking about the constitution? I never said anything about that. It's like you are trying to argue with me using points the other guy made. Lol!
What other guy? theCourt is reading off republican morals. I'm saying that you guys can argue about it all you want, but it's something to be voted on.
And the legality of both sides has everything to do with the constitution.
It is being voted on. Each state is voting on it and several have approved of same sex marriage.
And the federal government has forced the decision to legalize it on several states. Which is counterproductive. Only breeds resentment.
Other than that, we seem to agree.
Since I'm libertarian, of course I'm for same sex marriage. But I'm not for forcing approval of it in areas where it can't find a favorable vote locally.