ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

The key word being, 'personal'.

Antioxidant Overdose | 02/25/08

Look, Republicans are the party of freedom. We want to keep gov't small, let you keep more of your own money, keep the fairness doctrine out so there can be freedom of the press and many other things. Oh yea, we fight so other people in the world can have freedom too.

Obama's Irish | 02/26/08

Ron Paul, i believe, supports same-sex marriage. so does John McCain. your argument does not hold water.

Skipper04 | 02/26/08

Using same sex marriage as your main point does little to promote it when there are so many more arguments to choose from. This is not one of those situations where there is little proof. And, to Obama's Irish.... This president saw over the single largest expansion of government in our nations history. You want to see personal freedoms? How about the man who was arrested for telling a buddy at his local gym Bush was an **** during the '04 election? What about wire tapping? What about Ohio where the Republican governor limited voting availability in primarily black neighborhoods to suppress their vote? What about outing Valeria Plame in order to shut her husband up? What about supporting the Texas law that states it is illegal to run for office if you do not recognize there is a god? These are all examples of Republicans being against freedoms. That whole Florida debacle is another case that could be made. Do ends really justify the means?

Eveas | 02/26/08

Im surely not saying that the Republicans aren't without their illogical voting methods (as are the dems). I joined the debate because the statement looped all republicans together. I know quite a few reps that are splintered when it comes to voting. The statement is false on the onset. There are dems and reps on both sides of same-sex and abortion issues (notwithstanding other personal freedom issues). So to say that Republicans dont really care, its just false. I think stereotypes are what keeps people from growing. Want proof? you could easily replace the word Republicans in his statement with any other party and it would seem like slander. And we would all join in the debate to say otherwise, but in the end (at its base) it still rips apart at our society. When will we ever let stereotypes go?

Eaglevision | 02/26/08

To Obama's Irish, things like the Patriot Act and the Iraq war actually grow the federal government not keep it small. To Skipper04, both Ron Paul and John McCain support "leaving it to the states" but do not actually support it. McCain actually supported the Arizona state amendment to make same-sex marriages illegal. Don't declare that an argument doesn't have water unless you actually know the facts. To Eaglevision, when all the republicans stage a walk out of congress together, it"s hard for me to see that they don't all vote the same most of the time.

ColoradoJ | 02/26/08

I think that anyone that watches CSPAN enough can see that all republicans and all democrats (and even independents)dont vote the same

UncleSam70 | 02/27/08

Colorado, when you are a public servant: such as a senator, representative, legislator, etc.; you have to push your personal beliefs aside and vote they way your people want. If you get elected to protect the values of your party by the people, then you do it. McCain supported the bill because it was a "state right" not because he believed in banning same-sex marriages. But Seriously, Looking at the argument from Colorado at its base; its false because you cant prove they dont care. That fact that you use really suggests that maybe you have some kind of special insight into their minds or something....again unproveable. And you definitely (again) cant gather all republicans together under the same umbrella. If they stage a walk out, and you are a republican legislator, I bet you would be in on the real reason they walked out.

Eaglevision | 02/27/08

The word "majority" is implied in my statement. Of course all members of any group don't always completely agree. However, groups do have common beliefs that are shared by the majority of the party and when discussing a group's stance it is common to refer to their majority views. My point was not to argue that all republicans are the same, rather my point was that the majority of republicans are hypocritical when they say they are the party that fights for "personal freedoms". Personally I don't support candidates who put their personal integrity aside for the sake of their party. I was actually impressed when McCain said in the last debate that he puts the American people as more important than his party. I mentioned the walk-out simply as evidence that sometimes all republicans do act as a whole group. On a side note, I believe we would disagree on what is "holy" and what is blasphemous. And why have so many republicans fought against civil unions then? Denying that is denying personal freedom, as civil unions have nothing to do with religion.

ColoradoJ | 02/28/08

The word "majority" cannot be implied in your statement. Thats like running for president and saying "i hate illegal immigrants!" and then when the press runs on it, you say "oh well, by hate I was implying dislike. And you didnt even respond to how you were going to prove that they dont care? To think the vote count on this is in your favor (currently) just makes me think that people dont understand the point of the debate. I joined the debate because I knew you couldnt prove republicans didnt care about personal freedoms. I wanted to have a good debate, but you seem to have a great deal of friends on here. Can anyone just vote on the debate at hand?

Eaglevision | 02/29/08

You can't prove how much some one cares. However, you can look at the voting record of Republicans. When making a general statement about a group you look at what the majority of the group is doing.

ColoradoJ | 02/29/08

This really should be an instant win for EagleVison, because the central proposition is flawed - it assumes W cares about personal freedoms when he's repeatedly demonstrated the opposite.

Junius Brutus | 02/29/08

Thanks brutus, I thought the same when I read it. However, 8 to 6 in the votes means that people havent read the argument thoroughly. No offense, colorado, but when you generalize, you lose. Next time you can say "Despite George W's comments, I believe that most republicans dont care about what I consider the more important personal freedoms." See how that would more proveable?

Eaglevision | 02/29/08

It is quite pointless when one is making a statement to use phrases such as "I believe" or "I consider". When you are making a statement of course you are saying what you believe or consider. I know I have said this several times now, but you don't seem to get it, so I'll say it again. When one makes a general statement about a group one is obviously speaking about the majority of the group as obviously no group always unanimously agrees, therefore the word "most" is unnecessary. The edited statement you just provided is no different from mine, except that it has unnecessary words.

ColoradoJ | 03/01/08

You said "the statement you provided is no different than mine, except that it has unnecessary words" If that is true, then why is the vote so close? If you find yourself saying something several times, its because its not found amongst debators. You cannot simply apply a generalization to any group of people. Im telling you, it really makes someone sound unintelligent when they do it. Im not trying to be hard on you, but you should only make full statements of things you can prove. By full I mean all of those words that you think you dont need. By proving I mean facts that back up your point of view. Ever think that on abortion that most republicans are thinking of the personal rights of the baby? Ever think that when most republicans vote against civil unions its because the legislation lacks protections from any two people...meaning brothers, sisters, business partners from receiving the same tax breaks as married people? Before making generalizations, you should research the facts...

Eaglevision | 03/03/08

What "the facts" are is clearly subjective. Who are you to decide that a baby is the same thing as a fetus? We wouldn't have the word fetus if they weren't two different things. Your argument against civil unions could apply to marriages as well. Two people of opposite gender can quite easily get married just to gain tax breaks. Though in both marriage law and proposed civil union legislation there are provisions preventing kin from being able to marry or enter a civil union. Clearly you don't know "the facts" about this. Let's be honest, the statement you rewrote for me is much less controversial and much less likely to garner much attention. I wanted controversy and I actually wanted a close vote. In real life I avoid stereotyping and seek to work in bipartisan ways. The purpose of this site, however, is to have debate and controversy, and you have to admit that stereotyping actually helps to heat up debate and gains a lot more attention.

ColoradoJ | 03/03/08

First off, Im a registered democrat. However, Im older and understand that the world does not exist without both sides of any issue. I am not saying when life begins, I believe that is up to the individual. That is a personal freedom. The freedom to believe what you will. If you want controversy, then talk about the iraq war or WMD's or something.

Eaglevision | 03/06/08