Red/Blue debate (was Re: Use of hand held devices ...)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Gina
----------

Might have something to do with the difference between being a citizen
or a subject...

If stupidity were to be universally banned, the liberals couldn't even
speak anymore, but that would violate our First Amendment.

Love,

Gina

----------
(This posting was entered by Gina, an external user of MyDLV.)

[bobbiemlv]

In reply to Gina
If stupidity were to be universally banned, the liberals couldn't even
speak anymore, but that would violate our First Amendment.

That being the case, conservatives would cease to exist.

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Gina Richards
----------

>>If stupidity were to be universally banned, the liberals couldn't even
>>speak anymore, but that would violate our First Amendment.

> That being the case, conservatives would cease to exist.

Point taken...

Gina

----------
(This posting was entered by Gina Richards, an external user of MyDLV.)

[annie]

One thing that I find perplexing is all of the attention given to this one bill which took effect on October 1, the one regarding cell phones, and no apparent attention to other bills which took effect on the same date, most specifically SB 331 (2011), which more directly impacts our community.

For those unfamiliar with SB 331, it's the one which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression WRT public accommodations.

>>If stupidity were to be universally banned, the liberals couldn't even
>>speak anymore, but that would violate our First Amendment.

> That being the case, conservatives would cease to exist.

Another thing I fail to understand, it's how some in our community can support the politicians, pundits, and positions which are not only unsupportive but blatantly hostile to us and our community! That is one of the great mysteries of life!

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Gina Richards
----------

Hi Annie,

We've had this argument before! One side (also known as idiots)
supports the idea of grouping people, eg you are LBGT, or black or
Hispanic or whatever, and seeks to create all of these protected groups
which by my definition is discrimination hidden as non-discrimination,
the other side (also known as idiots) Seek to recognize the individual
as the standard and allow that person to succeed or fail or protect
themselves on their own.

Personally, I'd rather stand on my own and be responsible for my
acceptance and protection (and have the tools for that protection) than
be lumped into yet another protected class... now I know case can be
made that the creation of these classes made huge steps in civil rights
etc, but that like unions (another group of idiots) need to step aside
to allow the individual to again be in charge of themselves and grow the
economy and get things right again. Whew! Obviously the individualist
side has big problems too with right to choose, and true freedom of
worship, but at least as an armed population we have the power to resist
an oppressive government.... gee I wonder if that is what those slave
owning white guys had in mind in 1787?

Obviously from my idiot comments there are big, big problems on both
sides, freedom isn't free and requires a lot of work and sacrifice which
we often forget, so don't let anybody take any of your rights away,
ever, even the choice of how to use you stupid cell phone, just make
people pay forever for causing accident for being stupid no matter what
the reason.

Your transsexual center of the road right winger,

Gina

----------
(This posting was entered by Gina Richards, an external user of MyDLV.)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Amie
----------

I don't think you would ever be able to find one politician who covers
every base that you want. Some do good things for this community whilst
their parties wreck the economy - which matters most? Hard to choose
sometimes!

Just saying is all

Amie x

----------
(This posting was entered by Amie, an external user of MyDLV.)

[annie]

> Obviously the individualist
> side has big problems too with right to choose, and true freedom of
> worship, but at least as an armed population we have the power to resist
> an oppressive government....

I don't have any issues with strong individualists or Second Amendment advocates.

What I do have problems with are things like the so-called Constitutionalists who LOVE the Second Amendment but on the other hand deny the validity of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Or the so-called Libertarians who want to keep the Gummint out of private lives -- except when it comes to certain things such as reproductive choice and the right to a legally-recognized partner of your choice!

> so don't let anybody take any of your rights away,

Is there a right to bully kids who are perceived as "different"?

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Gina
----------

>>so don't let anybody take any of your rights away,

>Is there a right to bully kids who are perceived as "different"?

As a bullyee... there is of course no right to bully anybody and that
is what should be treated, not because it happened to a particular
"type" of person, stereotyping isn't right either.

Face it the entire political spectrum has issues one way or another.

Love you Annie, you really are one of the "good people"

Gina

----------
(This posting was entered by Gina, an external user of MyDLV.)

[External Poster]

This posting is from: Rosada Delano
----------

>Another thing I fail to understand, it's how some in our community
>can support the politicians, pundits, and positions which are not
>only unsupportive but blatantly hostile to us and our community!

You know I found this extremely strange too.

I usually don't bring up
politics nor religion but on some occasions I have stated or written
something that should leave no doubt in some people's mind as to where I
stand when it comes to politics.

But sometimes I have to scratch my head in wonder and utter to myself
"Huh!" when I get responses from some of the DLVgals that leave no doubt
in my mind where they stand politically. I have to wonder why they can't
understand the simple fact that Republicans and Tea Bag Party candidates
usually don't support our community and do everything to put us down or
pass legislation that continues to marginalize us.

----------
(This posting was entered by Rosada Delano, an external user of MyDLV.)

[annie]

> I have to wonder why they can't
> understand the simple fact that Republicans and Tea Bag Party candidates
> usually don't support our community and do everything to put us down or
> pass legislation that continues to marginalize us.

I really think that the Tea Party started out as a good-faith grassroots movement which was anti-tax and small-government in focus.

However, today's Tea Party is clearly dominated by what some call the Religious Reich, the far-right social conservatives who have an authoritarian agenda to impose their brand of fundamentalist Christianity upon all of us!

These folks don't like us! We're not "The Way Things Ought To Be"<tm> in their narrow minds!

I have many times suggested to the Libertarian-Conservatives in our community that some peer pressure is in order -- to remind said zealots that hatred and bigotry are not cool!