Dear GOP: (a rant! a rant!)

[TUSooner]

Forget about "shifts" leftward or rightward for a minute. I remember the Reagan shift; what happened there? The direction of the shift most people, care about is FORWARD or BACKWARD. Reagan's message was a positive Forward one. So is Obama's, whether you believe the message or not.
The GOP, on the other hand, has become the party of the backward Right Wing Radio zombies and the fundamentalist Christian apocalypticians. It's become the party of xenophobia, paranoia, fear, anti-intellectualism, and narrow mindedness. It's the party that caters to folks who see the anti-Christ under every bed and who think it might just be the job of the President to force Jesus' hand into coming back real quick-like. It's got a bunker mentality; it's become the party of the new "victim" -white conservative Christians being oppressed by..... well everybody. None of that is a positive, optimistic, or forward-looking, it never will be, and it will never win back the electorate. Hell, the GOP only pays lip service to small gubment, and its anti-socialist ravings are downright hypocritical. And the shoot-first-ask-questions-later foreign policy needs to be replaced with something smarter. Liberty? Except for guns and religious freedom for noisy Christians, the GOP offers more lip service.

Ironically, McCain has always been a positive type of guy, but he sold out to the dark side of the GOP.

And speaking of you RWRzombies out there, you Rush worshippers and Fox news junkies and the like. Change the ****ing station once in awhile. You cannot claim to have a fair realistic and balanced view of anything if you keep shoveling the same propaganda and black-or-white world view into your faces. In your circular thinking, anything that's not RWR-approved is socialist MSM propaganda just because it's not RWR-approved. It's like somebody listening to one song over and over and over and then pretending to know everything about music. No matter how good the song is, it's just one flippin song! Open your eyes, open your minds. Will Rogers would!

So GOP, your have nobody to blame but yourselves. You've pretty much told everyone who is not as narrow and correct and righteous as you to p*ss off, and they took you up on it. I only hope you will get your wheels back on the ground and embrace some forward-thinking, optimistic, principled conservatism before there really IS a leftward shift that we'll all regret.

[SoonerProphet]

word.

small government, fiscal responsibility, and taking care of our own house needs to be addressed by a truly conservative party. it has not been done so by the gop as of late. the demographics of this nation are changing and if we do not want european style government then some changes need to be made.

[OUDoc]

Nice post, TU. Good points.

[Dio]

Forget about "shifts" leftward or rightward for a minute. I remember the Reagan shift; what happened there? The direction of the shift most people, care about is FORWARD or BACKWARD. Reagan's message was a positive Forward one. So is Obama's, whether you believe the message or not.
The GOP, on the other hand, has become the party of the backward Right Wing Radio zombies and the fundamentalist Christian apocalypticians. It's become the party of xenophobia, paranoia, fear, anti-intellectualism, and narrow mindedness. It's the party that caters to folks who see the anti-Christ under every bed and who think it might just be the job of the President to force Jesus' hand into coming back real quick-like. It's got a bunker mentality; it's become the party of the new "victim" -white conservative Christians being oppressed by..... well everybody. None of that is a positive, optimistic, or forward-looking, it never will be, and it will never win back the electorate. Hell, the GOP only pays lip service to small gubment, and its anti-socialist ravings are downright hypocritical. And the shoot-first-ask-questions-later foreign policy needs to be replaced with something smarter. Liberty? Except for guns and religious freedom for noisy Christians, the GOP offers more lip service.

Ironically, McCain has always been a positive type of guy, but he sold out to the dark side of the GOP.

And speaking of you RWRzombies out there, you Rush worshippers and Fox news junkies and the like. Change the ****ing station once in awhile. you cannot caim to have a fair realistic and balanced view of anything if you keep shoveling the same propaganda and black-or-white world view into your faces. In your circular thinking, anything that's not RWR-approved is socialist MSM propaganda just because it's not RWR-approved. It's like somebody listening to one song over and over and over and then pretending to know everything about music. No matter how good the song is, it's just one flippin song! Open your eyes, open your minds. Will Rogers would!

So GOP, your have nobody to blame but yourselves. You've pretty much told everyone who is not as narrow and correct and righteous as you to p*ss off, and they took you up on it. I only hope you will get your wheels back on the ground and embrace some forward-thinking, optimistic, principled conservatism before there really IS a leftward shift that we'll all regret.


You left out "homophobic" and "legalistic", but otherwise all the stereotypes are there. Good job.

[My Opinion Matters]

d00d, that was too thoughtful and articulate to be considered a rant. You're going to have to step up your game.

[soonerhubs]

Hell, the GOP only pays lip service to small gubment, and its anti-socialist ravings are downright hypocritical.

This hit the nail right on the head. Great post TU, and thanks for putting that out there. It's high time we call the GOP out for it's hypocrisy, personally I think it's the only way a true conservative movement will start.

Question: Does anyone think any of the other GOP primary candidates would have been more trustworthy regarding the reduction of government spending and growth?

[TUSooner]

***

Question: Does anyone think any of the other GOP primary candidates would have been more trustworthy regarding the reduction of government spending and growth?

pssst. the only REAL "anti-socialist" conservative candidate was Ron Paul. But he evidently didn't hate enough unrighteous people to be taken seriously.

[85Sooner]

**** off ;)

[Howzit]

I think it was a nice post more than OUDoc does.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I think it was a great post

[Howzit]

I think it was an even greater post than STEP does.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

no way dude.. you already said nice

[GrapevineSooner]

This hit the nail right on the head. Great post TU, and thanks for putting that out there. It's high time we call the GOP out for it's hypocrisy, personally I think it's the only way a true conservative movement will start.

Question: Does anyone think any of the other GOP primary candidates would have been more trustworthy regarding the reduction of government spending and growth?

Fred Thompson perhaps. But that's about it.

And I concur wholeheartedly with TU. I said a few months back that an Obama win wouldn't be the end of the world. At the very least, the Dems didn't get that 60 vote super majority they were looking for.

As such, I don't think you'll see the Fairness Doctrine or universal healthcare anytime soon.

[SoonerBorn68]

I think it was an even greater post than STEP does.

Everybody who posted in this thread liked it better than me.

[Howzit]

Everybody who posted in this thread liked it better than me.

You will think differently after re-education camp.

[Dio]

You left out "homophobic" and "legalistic", but otherwise all the stereotypes are there. Good job.

OK, that was my gut reaction to this post. You're right that the Pubs let conservatives down, but I'm not sure the religious wing is to blame, other than for continuing to support Bush vs. the liberals, and seeing it is an either/or deal. I always smirked at the "neo-con" label as a way for liberals to divide the GOP, but it turns out neo-cons are real, and did divide the party. It took the bailout for me to figure that out- guys like Coburn and Cole (and Bush and McCain) who I thought had my back, sold us down the river to bail out guys who should sink or swim based on their own bad decisions.

[SoonerBorn68]

Will I get a tax credit for it?

[oumartin]

This country was founded on strong Christian values and the willingness to fight for what you believe in.


yeah, lets do away with all of this.. oh wait we have. and look at our country

[Stoop Dawg]

Forget about "shifts" leftward or rightward for a minute. I remember the Reagan shift; what happened there? The direction of the shift most people, care about is FORWARD or BACKWARD. Reagan's message was a positive Forward one. So is Obama's, whether you believe the message or not.

One of the talking heads made similar comments last night and I agree. Bush's message was "Go on about your life and let the govt take care of things". Obama's message is "Get on board with me and let's solve problems together". People want to feel involved. Obama was able to mobilize a huge volunteer force for his campaign and raise obscene amounts of money. He connected with people.

I'm not sure that Obama will live up to the hype. He's got a lot of work ahead and part of me wonders if he isn't a little naive in thinking he can change the world. Maybe he can, he seems to be a pretty capable guy.

Another good point made last night is that Obama talks a lot about being a uniter, but his voting record is clearly partisan. Maybe he was towing the party line to advance his career, or maybe those are his core beliefs. It will be interesting to see how bi-partisan he is as president and how much he (and congress) try to just shove stuff down people's throats.

[TUSooner]

This country was founded on strong Christian values and the willingness to fight for what you believe in.


yeah, lets do away with all of this.. oh wait we have. and look at our country

Just don't confuse Christian "values" or "ethics" with theological dogma.
Christian values and ethics produce mercy, justice, and saints.
Theological dogma produces the Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts, and hypocrisy.

[Howzit]

Just don't confuse Christian "values" or "ethics" with theological dogma.
Christian values and ethics produce mercy, justice, and saints.
Theological dogma produces the Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts, and hypocrisy.

And bingo.

[tommieharris91]

This country was founded on strong Christian values and the willingness to fight for what you believe in.


yeah, lets do away with all of this.. oh wait we have. and look at our country

No it wasn't. It was founded as a new, secular area where persecuted people could call a safe haven. It was founded as a stark contrast to a monarchy that force-feeds beliefs and ways of life down people's throats.

[Cam]

At the very least, the Dems didn't get that 60 vote super majority they were looking for.

As such, I don't think you'll see the Fairness Doctrine or universal healthcare anytime soon.

Double bingo.

[TUSooner]

No it wasn't. It was founded as a new, secular area where persecuted people could call a safe haven. It was founded as a stark contrast to a monarchy that force-feeds beliefs and ways of life down people's throats.

Indeed. It absolutely was NOT founded on any particular Christian theological dogma. The place was designed to allow complete individual freedom in that area, as well as freedom from having somebody else's theology rule your life.

[Scott D]

This country was founded on strong Christian values and the willingness to fight for what you believe in.


yeah, lets do away with all of this.. oh wait we have. and look at our country

using that mindset, you should have voted for Chuck Baldwin yesterday and not John McCain.

[soonervegas]

TU you pretty much knocked it out of the park on this one. Unfortunately, I think the damage is done. I really don't see Repubs coming back from the brink on this one anytime soon, unless Dems go far left.......which they could possibly do with full control. (But I am of the opinion that Obama is WAY to smart for that) The repubs got in bed with people that have a very narrow minded view of the world and it is going to be hard to break that chain at this point.

[TUSooner]

TU you pretty much knocked it out of the park on this one. Unfortunately, I think the damage is done. I really don't see Repubs coming back from the brink on this one anytime soon, unless Dems go far left.......which they could possibly do with full control. (But I am of the opinion that Obama is WAY to smart for that) The repubs got in bed with people that have a very narrow minded view of the world and it is going to be hard to break that chain at this point.


I fear you could be right about the GOP, and I hope you are right about BHO. Parties have been written off in the past, but time keep changing and the party in power is bound to screw up and let the other guys back in.

[Scott D]

well for the non extremists in the GOP there is always the Constitution Party ;)

[Dio]

Just don't confuse Christian "values" or "ethics" with theological dogma.
Christian values and ethics produce mercy, justice, and saints.
Theological dogma produces the Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts, and hypocrisy.

This I can agree with.

[tommieharris91]

well for the non extremists in the GOP there is always the Constitution Party ;)

Or the Libertarian Party, which is starting to look really good to me.

[Stoop Dawg]

Or the Libertarian Party, which is starting to look really good to me.

I voted for way more L's than either R's or D's this year.

[OklahomaTuba]

It's become the party of xenophobia, paranoia, fear, anti-intellectualism, and narrow mindedness.

Wait, you sure your not getting us confused with the party that just elected a guy who sat in front of Rev. Wright for 20+ years????

[tommieharris91]

Wait, you sure your not getting us confused with the party that just elected a guy who sat in front of Rev. Wright for 20+ years????

This would be some of the paranoia TUSooner is talking about.

[Scott D]

Or the Libertarian Party, which is starting to look really good to me.

nah, nothing really appealing about the Legalizing Weed Party.

[TUSooner]

Wait, you sure your not getting us confused with the party that just elected a guy who sat in front of Rev. Wright for 20+ years????

I was thinking of you.

[OklahomaTuba]

This would be some of the paranoia TUSooner is talking about.

Yeah, like the donks would just ignore it if McCain was attending Phelps church for 20+ years.

Of if he was hanging out with Timothy McVeigh back in the day.

Sounds more like ignoring reality than pointing out paranoia.

[OklahomaTuba]

I was thinking of you.
I'm honored. :D

[TMcGee86]

You are dead on that the party has abandoned the small gov, low spending, conservatism that it was supposedly founded on.

Instead, we get guys like McCain, who are actually moderate democrats, pretending to be Repubs.

And then when the polls dont swing their way, because the GOP is so out of touch with what really concerns their constituency, they grasp at straws like religion, homophobia, xenophobia, paranoia, fear, and anti-intellectualism.

The Palin choice was a perfect example of this.

McCain makes no headway against Obama, because he's never going to swing Dems into voting for him in the first election post-Bush, so he figures he needs to tap that "conservative base". (and yeah, I'd tap that base if you know what I'm saying...)

He picks Palin and he only alienates the core of the party even further because at this point, we are tired of being seen as inbred, science hating, pollution loving, mildly retarded cowboys.

The GOP is completely out of touch. The Bushes, both Whore-hey one and Whore-hey two, are to blame. Neither is anywhere near a conservative. They tried to swing the party and failed miserably. Couple that with rampant cronyism and we get landslide Obama.

I think they bounce back strong, but it may be a few years.

[OklahomaTuba]

Palin actually got the base excited, and once McCain picked her, was leading in the polls for about 2 weeks until the wallstreet meltdown started.

Palin is the only reason McCain made it as tight as it was.

Obama only won by 4%.

[OklahomaTuba]

BTW, Gay "marriage" was banned in CA and FL.

So much for that "shift".

[TMcGee86]

Palin actually got the base excited, and once McCain picked her, was leading in the polls for about 2 weeks until the wallstreet meltdown started.

Palin is the only reason McCain made it as tight as it was.

Obama only won by 4%.

At first, I absolutely agree with you.

But then the media attack dogs were sicked on her and it was all over. She was portrayed (probably wrongly) as a bible-beating wacko.

The "shift" is definitely overstated though. At least when it comes to social issues. Blacks voted nearly 70% in favor of gay marriage bans.

The nation remains center-right. The GOP just doesnt know what the hell that means.

[85Sooner]

Gotta disagree with ya.

Obamas message is for more government control and higher taxes which is neither positive or forward. It is regressive and backward.

IMO that view of the republican party is off target. The problem with the republican party is that the party is supposedly based on conservative ideals.

I might add that historically, they win everytime they acually
use conservative ideals. Their problem is when they try to become all things to all people.

They lose their base when this happens and you ain't gonna win without the base.

This so called Christian thing is a bunch of ho ha.
I know as many democrat Christians as Republican Christians....... actually, when I think about it more on the dem side ast least in OKla and Texas.

McCain sold out TO the moderates. I guess he was trying to become the first GREAT MODERATE IN HISTORY.

Right vs wrong is black and white unless someone is trying to justify or rationalize their behavior.

Your right the GOP has no one to blame but themselves. Fortunately alot of the mod pubs were kicked out of office this time and hopefully now we can rebuild based on true conservative ideals and get folks in office who will actually govern that way.

[TUSooner]

***The nation remains center-right. The GOP just doesnt know what the hell that means.
I tend agree with that; not all of those Dems are named Pelosi

[Vaevictis]

Obama only won by 4%.

Up to 6% now, with 97% of precincts reporting.

[TUSooner]

Gotta disagree with ya.

Obamas message is for more government control and higher taxes which is neither positive or forward. It is regressive and backward.

IMO that view of the republican party is off target. The problem with the republican party is that the party is supposedly based on conservative ideals.

I might add that historically, they win everytime they acually
use conservative ideals. Their problem is when they try to become all things to all people.

They lose their base when this happens and you ain't gonna win without the base.

This so called Christian thing is a bunch of ho ha.
I know as many democrat Christians as Republican Christians....... actually, when I think about it more on the dem side ast least in OKla and Texas.

McCain sold out TO the moderates. I guess he was trying to become the first GREAT MODERATE IN HISTORY.

Right vs wrong is black and white unless someone is trying to justify or rationalize their behavior.

Your right the GOP has no one to blame but themselves. Fortunately alot of the mod pubs were kicked out of office this time and hopefully now we can rebuild based on true conservative ideals and get folks in office who will actually govern that way.

Whether O's policies are regressive is entirely different from whether his message and attiude are forward focused. "Yes we can," like "It's Morning in America" are forward-focused messages.

As for black and white = right and wrong, here's my point. RWR posits that the "conservative" position (which is what they say it is) is right and everything else is not only wrong, is damned wrong, dangerous, and evil. Problem is, everything is oversimplified - which is evidently the way the RWR zombies like it, because it saves them the trouble of critical thinking. Also, the best way to show that RWR is Absolutely Right and the rest of the poor, benighted planet is Absolutely Wrong is to build straw men that can be knocked down with relish. Prime example: Rampant socialism! They'll take away your guns and your 401Ks! They'll force feed atheism to your children! They'll make flag burning mandatory! Obama is a Muslim and the anti-Christ. There is so much dust flying that rational discourse is impossible. (Pick your own examples of left-wing straw men, they're out there, too.)

As for lack of focus, the question is , "What is the proper 'conservative' focus." That's what the GOP has to figure out. It's got to be for something rather than just against everything else.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Forget about "shifts" leftward or rightward for a minute. I remember the Reagan shift; what happened there? The direction of the shift most people, care about is FORWARD or BACKWARD. Reagan's message was a positive Forward one. So is Obama's, whether you believe the message or not.
The GOP, on the other hand, has become the party of the backward Right Wing Radio zombies and the fundamentalist Christian apocalypticians. It's become the party of xenophobia, paranoia, fear, anti-intellectualism, and narrow mindedness. It's the party that caters to folks who see the anti-Christ under every bed and who think it might just be the job of the President to force Jesus' hand into coming back real quick-like. It's got a bunker mentality; it's become the party of the new "victim" -white conservative Christians being oppressed by..... well everybody. None of that is a positive, optimistic, or forward-looking, it never will be, and it will never win back the electorate. Hell, the GOP only pays lip service to small gubment, and its anti-socialist ravings are downright hypocritical. And the shoot-first-ask-questions-later foreign policy needs to be replaced with something smarter. Liberty? Except for guns and religious freedom for noisy Christians, the GOP offers more lip service.

Ironically, McCain has always been a positive type of guy, but he sold out to the dark side of the GOP.

And speaking of you RWRzombies out there, you Rush worshippers and Fox news junkies and the like. Change the ****ing station once in awhile. You cannot claim to have a fair realistic and balanced view of anything if you keep shoveling the same propaganda and black-or-white world view into your faces. In your circular thinking, anything that's not RWR-approved is socialist MSM propaganda just because it's not RWR-approved. It's like somebody listening to one song over and over and over and then pretending to know everything about music. No matter how good the song is, it's just one flippin song! Open your eyes, open your minds. Will Rogers would!

So GOP, your have nobody to blame but yourselves. You've pretty much told everyone who is not as narrow and correct and righteous as you to p*ss off, and they took you up on it. I only hope you will get your wheels back on the ground and embrace some forward-thinking, optimistic, principled conservatism before there really IS a leftward shift that we'll all regret.Yer out yer mind. Get help

[TUSooner]

Yer out yer mind. Get help

The denial is the saddest part of Radio Zombie syndrome. :D

[85Sooner]

Whether O's policies are regressive is entirely different from whether his message and attiude are forward focused. "Yes we can," like "It's Morning in America" are forward-focused messages.

As for black and white = right and wrong, here's my point. RWR posits that the "conservative" position (which is what they say it is) is right and everything else is not only wrong, is damned wrong, dangerous, and evil. Problem is, everything is oversimplified - which is evidently the way the RWR zombies like it, because it saves them the trouble of critical thinking. Also, the best way to show that RWR is Absolutely Right and the rest of the poor, benighted planet is Absolutely Wrong is to build straw men that can be knocked down with relish. Prime example: Rampant socialism! They'll take away your guns and your 401Ks! They'll force feed atheism to your children! They'll make flag burning mandatory! Obama is a Muslim and the anti-Christ. There is so much dust flying that rational discourse is impossible. (Pick your own examples of left-wing straw men, they're out there, too.)

As for lack of focus, the question is , "What is the proper 'conservative' focus." That's what the GOP has to figure out. It's got to be for something rather than just against everything else.

Obama has been against the right to own guns, said he wants to tax 401k's the left has done everything in their power to get prayer out of schools. Never heard anything about the flag burning and Obama at one time was a muslim and I have not seen anything that would prove or disprove that other than claiming he was a christian while attending a hate filled political rally that called itself a church which is centered around the black reformationists.

the conservative agenda is Lower taxes, less government, self responsibility and self reliance and following the constitution. The kind of logic that goes along with the "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach him how to fish.........etc.....

[TUSooner]

***the conservative agenda is Lower taxes, less government, self responsibility and self reliance and following the constitution. The kind of logic that goes along with the "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach him how to fish.........etc.....

Regardless of the "conservative agenda" (which I endorse) the GOP campaign was more like this:

Obama has been against the right to own guns, said he wants to tax 401k's the left has done everything in their power to get prayer out of schools.... and Obama at one time was a muslim and I have not seen anything that would prove or disprove that other than claiming he was a christian while attending a hate filled political rally that called itself a church which is centered around the black reformationists.
Not real positive, that. You should have stuck with the conservative agenda.

[tommieharris91]

Yer out yer mind. Get help

Right on cue.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Palin actually got the base excited, and once McCain picked her, was leading in the polls for about 2 weeks until the wallstreet meltdown started.

Palin is the only reason McCain made it as tight as it was.

Obama only won by 4%.You're delusional.

And if we have her as our nominee in 2012 we're in for a total butt kicking.


BTW, Gay "marriage" was banned in CA and FL.

So much for that "shift".Yep. It's sad. And it's also proof that it takes a while to erase bigotry and discrimination from a society. But believe me, it will be erased.

[tommieharris91]

Yeah, like the donks would just ignore it if McCain was attending Phelps church for 20+ years.

Of if he was hanging out with Timothy McVeigh back in the day.

Sounds more like ignoring reality than pointing out paranoia.

You know, they pretty much did ignore McCain hanging out with convicted felons. Instead, they asked McCain how many houses he owned, and they pretty much gave Palin enough rope to hang the McCain campaign.

Lastly, your post was filled with more fear that TUSooner was talking about.

[Sooner_Havok]

You know, they pretty much did ignore McCain hanging out with convicted felons. Instead, they asked McCain how many houses he owned, and they pretty much gave Palin enough rope to hang the McCain campaign.

Lastly, your post was filled with more fear that TUSooner was talking about.


Damn it, your still doing it! I thought you was OleVet.

Total mind ****!

:D :D

[Sooner_Havok]

Let me say this. If the GOP listens to Rush, they are doomed.


McCain did everything the Wizards of Smart on our side told him to do, and he failed. Moderate Republicanism lost. Conservatism didn't.



This is what moderation got us: 20% of "conservatives" voted for Obama.

So let's make a hard right turn, that will pick up those conservatives that went for Obama. Makes sense to me.

[TUSooner]

Why is it that social libertarianism always seems to come attached to profligate spending and entitlements (and often includes questionable defense policies), while economic conservatism comes tied to the puritanical social agenda of the religious right (and often includes questionable military adventures)?

Fail it what that is.

[85Sooner]

You're delusional.


Yep. It's sad. And it's also proof that it takes a while to erase bigotry and discrimination from a society. But believe me, it will be erased.


Funny that during a liberal landslide in Cali and Fla, while everyone was voting for Obama, they voted to vote on the conservative side of this issue.

I know you will call it bigotry and discrimination. Maybe there are more people than just those in the GLAD community that actually understand human biology.

I know I will never get you to agree but when discussing with a lot of folks as I described before from all preferences they seem to agree.

[tommieharris91]

Right on cue.


I've had enough of your chihuahua behavior. bye.

OK, TUSooner writes these great posts about how the Republican party used to be, and your only answers are things like "Your out of your mind, get help." He sits there and tells you that the party has divided the country, using fear tactics and attacks instead of putting real ideas that follow the conservative mantra. He tells people that the conservatives have become "the party for the victim." He sits there and tells you that Republicans have not stuck to their core ideology, and they have put forth a bad president and a multitude of politicians who say one thing and do the complete opposite. He throws out all the problems, and "get help" is your only answer?

Then he goes ahead and calls you out and basically says CHANGE THE CHANNEL!! Who knows, you might actually like an idea a "socialist, anti-Christ, liberal" is putting forth. You might actually like a part of the "state-run MSM." Or better yet, you can create your own ideas. John McCain tried to do it. He actually had ideas like "green, permanent jobs for people in the Rust Belt. Ways to create renewable energy and create jobs for people who lose theirs." But hey, all you have to say is "get help." So stop listening to Rush, stop thinking "What would Rush do?" take your tinfoil hat off and think for yourself. GET HELP.

Dear Lord, at least 85Sooner offered a rebuttal.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Funny that during a liberal landslide in Cali and Fla, while everyone was voting for Obama, they voted to vote on the conservative side of this issue.

I know you will call it bigotry and discrimination. Maybe there are more people than just those in the GLAD community that actually understand human biology.

I know I will never get you to agree but when discussing with a lot of folks as I described before from all preferences they seem to agree.Doesn't make them any less wrong.

[TMcGee86]

Doesn't make them any less wrong.

Who are you to judge? Maybe you should be more open minded.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Who are you to judge? Maybe you should be more open minded.
Open minded towards closed mindedness?

[lexsooner]

No it wasn't. It was founded as a new, secular area where persecuted people could call a safe haven. It was founded as a stark contrast to a monarchy that force-feeds beliefs and ways of life down people's throats.

Correct. Does anyone wonder why so few Western Europeans - English, Scandanavians, Germans, actually practice their religion, even though so many are in name Lutheran, Presbyterian or Methodist church members? Precisely because the church has been so intertwined with their government over the centuries that it has no appeal to the masses. Churches are just like government entities to them. They offer no faith, joy, freedom or hope, just like their governments, so why bother? I think our founding Fathers understood this and sought to create a different nation. Compare how many American are practicing Christians or any other faith, with Western Europeans. Enough said.

[85Sooner]

Doesn't make them any less wrong.

Doesn't make you right and biological evidence supports our theory more than yours. Sorry

[mdklatt]

Why is it that social libertarianism always seems to come attached to profligate spending and entitlements (and often includes questionable defense policies), while economic conservatism comes tied to the puritanical social agenda of the religious right (and often includes questionable military adventures)?

Fail it what that is.

We need more Northeastern Republicans. Olympia Snow has been a senator in Maine for years, and Maine is pretty blue.

[TUSooner]

Correct. Does anyone wonder why so few Western Europeans - English, Scandanavians, Germans, actually practice their religion, even though so many are in name Lutheran, Presbyterian or Methodist church members? Precisely because the church has been so intertwined with their government over the centuries that it has no appeal to the masses. Churches are just like government entities to them. They offer no faith, joy, freedom or hope, just like their governments, so why bother? I think our founding Fathers understood this and sought to create a different nation. Compare how many American are practicing Christians or any other faith, with Western Europeans. Enough said.

Excellent point. Separation of church and state PROTECTS THE CHURCH! And I don't recall Jesus telling his disciples to make sure the gubment carries your cross for you. These people who want the gubment to support their religious beliefs are seeking a sort of "spiritual welfare." The "free exercise" and "establishment" clauses of the 1st Amendment are sometimes a bit tricky, but as wise a political doctrine as there is.

[Sooner_Havok]

Excellent point. Separation of church and state PROTECTS THE CHURCH! And I don't recall Jesus telling his disciples to make sure the gubment carries your cross for you. These people who want the gubment to support their religious beliefs are seeking a sort of "spiritual welfare." The "free exercise" and "establishment" clauses of the 1st Amendment are sometimes a bit tricky, but as wise a political doctrine as there is.


The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg

:D

[mdklatt]

:D

But it hurts some people's widdle feelings when somebody doesn't acknowledge the superiority of their religion.

[Jerk]

It won't work, TU. If you make the Republican Party strictly a right-wing libertarian party and kick out the religious right, you'll lose the votes needed to win federal elections.

I believe we're at the point where half the voters don't pay income tax versus half who do, and there simply aren't enough people who believe in small government, free markets, local control, individual liberty, etc. to make this happen.

The only good thing that could happen would be that the 2 parties born out of this could form a coalition in the legislature to stop socialism. Yes, I said the "s" word. Let's at least be honest about what the goal of the far left is.

But since so many libertarians see religious people as just as threatening as a Big Giant Government, I'm not sure this would even happen.

Just my uneducated redneck opinion.

[mdklatt]

I believe we're at the point where half the voters don't pay income tax versus half who do, and there simply aren't enough people who believe in small government, free markets, local control, individual liberty, etc. to make this happen.


Yep, half the people don't pay taxes at all...except for the taxes they do pay like gasoline tax, property tax, sales tax, payroll tax, airport tax, excise tax, tire recycling fee....

[Stitch Face]

Yep, half the people don't pay taxes at all...except for the taxes they do pay like gasoline tax, property tax, sales tax, payroll tax, airport tax, excise tax, tire recycling fee....

He did specify income tax, not any taxes. It's right there in your quote.

[mdklatt]

He did specify income tax

That's my point. Everybody who busts out that statistic--which probably isn't even true--is trying to imply that half of all voters don't pay taxes and are thus sucking at the government trough. More than a few go even farther and say that they shouldn't have the right to vote at all. What percentage of all tax revenue comes from income tax?

[47straight]

Excellent point. Separation of church and state PROTECTS THE CHURCH! And I don't recall Jesus telling his disciples to make sure the gubment carries your cross for you. These people who want the gubment to support their religious beliefs are seeking a sort of "spiritual welfare." The "free exercise" and "establishment" clauses of the 1st Amendment are sometimes a bit tricky, but as wise a political doctrine as there is.


I'd argue that those religious christians wanting a welfare state are indeed wanting the gubment to support their religious beliefs.

[lexsooner]

Forget about "shifts" leftward or rightward for a minute. I remember the Reagan shift; what happened there? The direction of the shift most people, care about is FORWARD or BACKWARD. Reagan's message was a positive Forward one. So is Obama's, whether you believe the message or not.
The GOP, on the other hand, has become the party of the backward Right Wing Radio zombies and the fundamentalist Christian apocalypticians. It's become the party of xenophobia, paranoia, fear, anti-intellectualism, and narrow mindedness. It's the party that caters to folks who see the anti-Christ under every bed and who think it might just be the job of the President to force Jesus' hand into coming back real quick-like. It's got a bunker mentality; it's become the party of the new "victim" -white conservative Christians being oppressed by..... well everybody. None of that is a positive, optimistic, or forward-looking, it never will be, and it will never win back the electorate. Hell, the GOP only pays lip service to small gubment, and its anti-socialist ravings are downright hypocritical. And the shoot-first-ask-questions-later foreign policy needs to be replaced with something smarter. Liberty? Except for guns and religious freedom for noisy Christians, the GOP offers more lip service.

Ironically, McCain has always been a positive type of guy, but he sold out to the dark side of the GOP.

And speaking of you RWRzombies out there, you Rush worshippers and Fox news junkies and the like. Change the ****ing station once in awhile. You cannot claim to have a fair realistic and balanced view of anything if you keep shoveling the same propaganda and black-or-white world view into your faces. In your circular thinking, anything that's not RWR-approved is socialist MSM propaganda just because it's not RWR-approved. It's like somebody listening to one song over and over and over and then pretending to know everything about music. No matter how good the song is, it's just one flippin song! Open your eyes, open your minds. Will Rogers would!

So GOP, your have nobody to blame but yourselves. You've pretty much told everyone who is not as narrow and correct and righteous as you to p*ss off, and they took you up on it. I only hope you will get your wheels back on the ground and embrace some forward-thinking, optimistic, principled conservatism before there really IS a leftward shift that we'll all regret.

Well said, TU. The GOP will have to redefine itself in the future in order to get control of the White House. Catering to Joe the Plumber and his constituency is not going to get a Pub in the White House with its current agenda in future decades when Florida, Texas, Arizona, and other formerly red states become blue, thanks to increasing Hispanic populations. Saying that rural whites are the "real Americans" is only going to turn away newer Americans and city folk from the GOP. It may pain many Republicans, but the party's hard stance on illegal immigration is going to be sticking point in the future, because attracting Hispanic Americans is going to be critical to winning the Presidency. The party of fat white guys will need to also become the party of fat Latinos, et al.

The GOP's moral issues, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-stem cell research, will all be politically losing propositions in the future. Young people care less and less about gays, even Evangelical Christian youth care less than their parents. The GOP has to face the reality that this country is becoming one of not only Joe Six Pack, but also Tito the Builder. Adjusting to the new America is essential to the party's viability in the 21st Century.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Doesn't make you right and biological evidence supports our theory more than yours. SorryUhm. No. Science is backing up the Nature theory more than the Nurture theory.

Sorry. The only reason to believe the way you do is Christian Fundamentalist rationalization.

[85Sooner]

Uhm. No. Science is backing up the Nature theory more than the Nurture theory.

Sorry. The only reason to believe the way you do is Christian Fundamentalist rationalization.

You know, I have been totally cordial to you despite your constant attacks on the pubs around here. You stated in a PM that you would espouse your beliefs but didn't, you told me to look at the original beliefs of the inception of the republican party or call you. I have no reason to waste my time.

At this time I am calling you out. You have stated that you are a conservative Republican but evidence shows that you are a left wing, propagandist believing liberal and I believe others here will agree. So accept what you are and quit trying to convince people you are what your not and go try to save the positions of the gays on the shows because they are finding out that the general public has had enough of this nonsense. Go Prop 8

And no Dip wit, the science backs up biology. To agree with you would be to say that there is something identifiable in DNA that would predisposition a person to be gay which would mean BRAIN DAMAGE. To accept the concept that some people are more attracted to feminine or masculine traits and make a CHOICE is proven and totally annihilates your beliefs Sorry big guy!

[Sooner_Havok]

You know, I have been totally cordial to you despite your constant attacks on the pubs around here. You stated in a PM that you would espouse your beliefs but didn't, you told me to look at the original beliefs of the inception of the republican party or call you. I have no reason to waste my time.

At this time I am calling you out. You have stated that you are a conservative Republican but evidence shows that you are a left wing, propagandist believing liberal and I believe others here will agree. So accept what you are and quit trying to convince people you are what your not and go try to save the positions of the gays on the shows because they are finding out that the general public has had enough of this nonsense. Go Prop 8

And no Dip wit, the science backs up biology. To agree with you would be to say that there is something identifiable in DNA that would predisposition a person to be gay which would mean BRAIN DAMAGE. To accept the concept that some people are more attracted to feminine or masculine traits and make a CHOICE is proven and totally annihilates your beliefs Sorry big guy!

You know, believing in Jesus is not a prerequisite for being a republican.

[jkjsooner]

pssst. the only REAL "anti-socialist" conservative candidate was Ron Paul. But he evidently didn't hate enough unrighteous people to be taken seriously.

I like about 70% of what Ron Paul says but that 30% is just plain batty and scarry.

I could be wrong but the guy is against fractional reserve banking. Such a radical idea is scarry. Does he really want us to put our money in the bank and have the bank lend out 0% of it? We would have to pay a hefty fee to hand over our money to a bank as the bank would have no method of income derived from our money.

This is not to mention the devastating deflation that the removal of fractional reserve banking would cause. Welcome to the Great Depression time ten!

And the anti Federal Reserve stance is scarry as well. Don't get me wrong, something about the Fed stinks but you better darn well know what you're doing if you remove it.

And the Gold Standard is such B.S. Gold is as arbitrary as anything and it needlessly ties different gold standard economies together in a way that could be very problematic to us.

[Vaevictis]

And the Gold Standard is such B.S. Gold is as arbitrary as anything and it needlessly ties different gold standard economies together in a way that could be very problematic to us.

"Could be" is a fairly strong understatement. Peer reviewed research shows that the length and depth of the Great Depression experienced by countries is strongly correlated to how long they stayed on the gold standard.

[GrapevineSooner]

That's my point. Everybody who busts out that statistic--which probably isn't even true--is trying to imply that half of all voters don't pay taxes and are thus sucking at the government trough. More than a few go even farther and say that they shouldn't have the right to vote at all -- which ALSO probably isn't even true. What percentage of all tax revenue comes from income tax?

Fixed your strawman.

[tommieharris91]

I like about 70% of what Ron Paul says but that 30% is just plain batty and scarry.

I could be wrong but the guy is against fractional reserve banking. Such a radical idea is scarry. Does he really want us to put our money in the bank and have the bank lend out 0% of it? We would have to pay a hefty fee to hand over our money to a bank as the bank would have no method of income derived from our money.

This is not to mention the devastating deflation that the removal of fractional reserve banking would cause. Welcome to the Great Depression time ten!

And the anti Federal Reserve stance is scarry as well. Don't get me wrong, something about the Fed stinks but you better darn well know what you're doing if you remove it.

And the Gold Standard is such B.S. Gold is as arbitrary as anything and it needlessly ties different gold standard economies together in a way that could be very problematic to us.

Ahh, the reasons why I don't like Ron Paul. He wants to eliminate a piece of the government that actually makes money. If the Fed dies, who facilitates lending? Who helps good companies get credit, especially if he wants banks to stop lending to each other? Lastly, yea, that would pretty much end the US as an economic superpower, and it might doom the world.

Ron Paul wanting the gold standard is the stark opposite of Freidman "free market" economics. At its core, it is a price fix, something that is obviously the complete opposite of market freedom. Also, tying the price of money up to a good means giving away monetary autonomy, aka the ability of a central bank to set interest rates. Rate targeting, in the right hands, can promote growth and stem inflation. Without those controls, even setting money to a good will fail because of inflationary pressures. It simply cannot be done.

[GottaHavePride]

And no Dip wit, the science backs up biology. To agree with you would be to say that there is something identifiable in DNA that would predisposition a person to be gay which would mean BRAIN DAMAGE. To accept the concept that some people are more attracted to feminine or masculine traits and make a CHOICE is proven and totally annihilates your beliefs Sorry big guy!

OK, both you and LAS are claiming your side is proven. Can EITHER of you cite studies published in a peer-reviewed medical journal conclusively proving that the cause of homosexuality is EITHER genetic OR due to environment?

I'll hang up and listen.

[silverwheels]

We all know homosexuality is associated with the University of Texas.

[GottaHavePride]

Ah, but is the University of Texas the cause or is it just a correlation? Perhaps conditions at UT are simply optimal for the existence of Teh Ghey, so it accumulates there?

[silverwheels]

Ah, but is the University of Texas the cause or is it just a correlation? Perhaps conditions at UT are simply optimal for the existence of Teh Ghey, so it accumulates there?

It's kinda both. People with Teh Ghey are naturally drawn there, and those that don't have it already acquire it once they are there.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Blah blah blah I wanna blindly hate people and feel good about it so I'll try to justify it and when science smacks me back down I'll cry and start hurling around baseless accusations blah blah blah and my panties are all hurting and wadded up right now blah blah blahFixed.

You sent me a PM asking me to "explain all my opinions on all issues" so you could understand what I believed and how I still labeled myself "Republican" when I didn't toe the ultra-conservative neo-con philosophy that YOU mistakenly believe IS Republican. I was too tired and disinterested to take the time to type it all up, so instead I offered to have an adult conversation on the phone and offered to call you and gave you my number so you could call me. I tried to treat you like a man. You chose not to call me. And ran and hid. **** off.

[LosAngelesSooner]

OK, both you and LAS are claiming your side is proven. Can EITHER of you cite studies published in a peer-reviewed medical journal conclusively proving that the cause of homosexuality is EITHER genetic OR due to environment?

I'll hang up and listen.

X marks the spot - possible genetic link to homosexuality found on the X chromosome - 1993 - The Year in Science

Discover (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511), Jan, 1994 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n1_v15) by Rosie Mestel (http://findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qa=Rosie+Mestel)
E-mail (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n1_v15/ai_14908825/tell)
Print (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n1_v15/ai_14908825/print)
Link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n1_v15/ai_14908825#)BACK IN THE OLD DAYS, DEAN HAMER, A MOLECULAR BIOLOGIST AT THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, STUDIED THE METALLOTHIONEIN GENE (IF YOU MUST KNOW, IT'S A GENE FOR A PROtein that mops up toxic metals in your body). But that's not only he appeared on Nightline last summer. Hamer now studies sexual behavior, and he'd found a genetic link to homosexuality--one apparently inherited by sons from their mothers. Freud, it seems, may have been right in ways he never imagined.

The first clue to the mom link came when Hamer studied the families of 76 gay men and found that uncles and male cousions on the mother's side were more likely to be gay than those on the father's side. That suggested a gay gene or genes might be sitting on the X chromosome, which boys get only from their mothers.

Hamer then turned to 40 pairs of gay brothers, sampled their DNA, and scoured their X chromosomes for any regions they had in common. In July his team announced that they'd found one such site--shared by two-thirds of the brothers--at the chromosome's bottom end.

This doesn't necessarily mean that a gay gene is hiding there. Hamer's results must still be verified--many gene-behavior links haven't stood the rest of time. Next, researchers must actually find the gay gene (or genes) in a stretch of DNA that could hold as many as 100 genes; then they must figure out what it does. How, precisely, can a gene make someone gay? One possibility was suggested two years ago when neurobiologist Simon LeVay found that gays and straights differ in a brain region called the hypothalamus, which controls sexual behavior. "In the simplest of all worlds a gay gene could encode a protein that controls the growth of this structure," says Hamer. "That would be cool." Still, such a gene couldn't be the only route to homosexuality, since one-third of the gay brothers didn't share the DNA piece that apparently contains it.

Meanwhile, Hamer and colleagues make no bones about what shouldn't be done with their findigs. They should not be used to discriminate against gays or "to try to assess or alter a person's current or future sexual orientation," they concluded in their Science study. That's a view gay-rights groups heartily endorse. But not surprisingly, some people disagree. Even if there were gay genes, says Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, "we wouldn't condone homosexuality. We'd still need to correct it."

Yet studies like Hamer's may also help turn public opinion around. A recent New York Times poll found that people who believe homosexuality is inborn are more sympathetic to gay issues than those who think's it's life-style choice.

"This work has an impact on society," Hamer says. "There's intense public interest. I was not deluged by calls when we discovered the regulator of the metallothionein gene."

COPYRIGHT 1994 Discover
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group


THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY



Dara Newman


In trying to decide on a topic for this WWW project, it seemed logical to try and focus on a current subject. Homosexuality and homosexual behavior has existed for thousands and thousands of years, probably even before the times of homo-sapiens. However, up until a few years ago, the issue was discussed mostly by people in the social sciences. Psychologists, such as Freud, studied homosexuals extensively in hopes of coming up with an explanation for their "abnormal" behavior. All of the explanations that these people created linked homosexuality to experiences that homosexuals have while growing up. Generally speaking, people in the world of psychology believed that homosexuality could be explained by a person's environment. However, in the past four or five years, the subject of homosexuality has been creeping into the world of biology. Studies have been done recently that attempt to look at homosexuality in a scientific light in hopes of coming up with a genetic explanation for sexual preference. One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did (5) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#5).

One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality (4) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#4). Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified (7) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#7). Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful (7) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#7). The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth. Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality (8) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#8). As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.
Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a Ò52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men (8) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#8). These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and PillardÕs by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a personÕs sexual orientation (8) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#8).

Looking at the results of many of the other studies I have discussed, it seems a little strange to me that the student of homosexual siblings who were both male and female came up with similar result as the studies that looked exclusively at male homosexuality. Hamer's study, along with others, have tried to located a gene that influences female homosexuality, but they have been unsuccessful. More importantly, the region of the X chromosome that very possibly could influence male homosexuality does not influence females in the same way. Female heterosexuals merely pass the gene sequence on to their sons. Knowing this, it seems odd to me that there would be such a high percentage of male and female homosexual siblings. Perhaps this suggests that if genetics are responsible for homosexuality, we have a long way to go before we completely understand the gene loci that determine sexuality.

Aside from the scientists who are researching the topic of homosexuality and genetics, there are many other people who have concerns and vested interests in the topic. The information that is being discovered has been used by people in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, there are members of the gay community who are very excited to find that the life-style they live is not entirely a choice that they made, as homophobic people often like to believe. Some homosexuals feel that if the world realizes that homosexuality is something people are born with, just like the color of your skin or your eyes, then people will begin to be more accepting of the homosexual life-style (5) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#5). However, on the other hand, there is also a group a people who believe that if homosexuality is in fact genetically linked, then there should be a way to genetically alter homosexuals in order to make them "normal" (3) (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#3).

Before I started researching this topic on the world-wide-web, I did not realize what a new and controversial issue the genetics of homosexuality was. From tid-bits of news that I had picked up along the way, I thought that scientists had located, without a doubt, a gene that plays a role in influencing sexual orientation. From the research that I have discussed above, that is obviously not the case. I am eager to follow this subject more in the future and see what biology will discover next.

References
1) Genetics and Homosexuality (http://www.geneletter.org/1196/homosexuality.htm), from the Gene Letter
2) Homosexuality: Genetics and the Bible (http://ftp.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/another.effort.at.explaining.the.bible.and.queers) , by Tom Terry, Cutting Edge Magazine
3) Statement on NIH Genetic Study on Homosexuality (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/bulgarians/nih-ngltf.html), from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
4) New study says genetics influences homosexuality (http://walden.mvp.net/%7Epara/scrapbook/genetics.html), from St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1995
5) Homosexuality and Genetics (http://www.pilot.infi.net/%7Esusanf/aolgay.htm), one person's views
6) A commentary on "Research on Sex Orientation Doesn't Fit the Mold" (http://www-leland.stanford.edu/%7Eringo/strp/behavior-print-summaries.html#angier3)
7) Genetics Press Cuttings (http://www.sbu.ac.uk/%7Estafflag/pressgene.html), from The Knitting Circle, South Bank University, London
8) The Hypothetical Genetics of Sexual Orientation (http://hamp.hampshire.edu/%7EkebF92/genetics.html), by Keith Bell, a Boston University undergraduate
9) Is there a genetic basis for sexual orientation? (http://religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm#gene), from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
10) Lesbianism/homosexuality - a human surival trait (http://qrd.rdrop.com/qrd/origins/evoluntionary.survival), a commentary on the Queer Resources Directory (http://qrd.rdrop.com/qrd)
11) Homosexuality: Its in Your Genes (http://qrd.rdrop.com/qrd/origins/homosexuality.is.in.your.genes-06.27.95), an article posted on QRD
12) Genetics and sexuality (http://mo.net/%7Epara/scrapbook/genetics.html), a news reportBy the way (this is to 85Sooner), if something is genetic, it doesn't mean there is brain damage. Being left handed is genetic. They haven't found the "left hand" gene yet, but they know it is there. Being "left handed" is no more "brain damaged" than being born homosexual.


But you keep doing whatever it takes to justify your hate and bigotry in order to make yourself feel better. Some day people like you will all be dead and this will be a non-issue. Kinda like what's happening with racism towards blacks. :pop:

My bigger question, 85, is why is it everything with you somehow comes back to the Gays? Seriously. Every conversation. Always about the Gays. And you're always bashing them. Any ideas on why you keep obsessing?

[LosAngelesSooner]

One more post and then I'm dropping this boring subject and leaving the bigots to their bigotry. This threadjacking is really dull.



Scientist Says Study Confirms Genetic Link To Homosexuality

By Jamie Talan (http://search.nwsource.com/search?sort=date&from=ST&byline=Jamie%20Talan)
Newsday

A landmark 1993 finding that mothers can pass along a gene that influences the sexual behavior of their sons has been confirmed by further study, according to a scientist who did the initial research.

A study of 32 additional gay brothers from unrelated families "firms up the connection between genes and their association with gay men," said Dean Hamer, chief of gene structure and regulation in the laboratory of biochemistry at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Md.

"We are excited to see where this leads," he added. Hamer, along with scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., are to report on his latest research today in the journal Nature Genetics.

Hamer and his colleagues first identified a genetic link on the X chromosome back in 1993, a finding that some activists feared would lead to further stigmatization and the possibility that people would begin aborting fetuses who carry such a gene.
Others, however, were heartened to learn that there may be a deeper, more immutable reason that they were gay.

Women have two copies of the X chromosome, only one of which is passed on to their children.

The latest finding is actually an extension of Hamer's initial work, which focused on 50 gay brothers. Hamer went further in the latest research by studying the genes of heterosexual brothers, and found that the straight sons got one copy of the X chromosome while the homosexual sons received the other.
They also looked at lesbian sisters and did not find the same genetic link to the X chromosome.

"It is an encouraging finding," said Dr. Elliot Gershon, chief of the clinical neurogenetics branch at the National Institute of Mental Health. "But one should be skeptical of any such linkage until other laboratories have confirmed it."

Hamer said that he still has no clue what the gene is or what it does. It has not been isolated, and is one among hundreds of genes in that region. Laboratories are working now to identify all the genes in the area.

The work was a collaborative effort among NCI scientists Stella Hu, Angela Pattatucci and Hamer; David Fulker and Stacey Cherny of the University of Colorado; and Leonid Kruglyak of the Whitehead Institute.

Copyright (c) 1995 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.Twin studies on homosexuality can either confirm a genetic link in homosexuality or refute a genetic link in homosexuality.

Presumption: If sexual orientation is genetic then myno zygotic twins would all have the same sexual orientation. Although there tends to be a high concordance in sexual orientation in mono zygotic twins (anywhere from 38% to 52% to 95%, depending on the study you choose to believe), it is quite clear that not all mono zygotic twins share the same sexual orientation.

Conclusion:This fact seems to refute the idea that homosexuality is genetic.

Presumption 2: If sexual orientation is environmentally influenced then twins, whether mono zygotic or dizygotic twins would seem to have very high correlations in their sexual orientation since twins tend to be nurtured very similarly. The fact is that twins do not always share sexual orientations and the correlation for dizygotic twins is very low...

Conclusion:Therefore, it would seem to discount the idea that environment influences sexual orientation.

Therefore thanks to twin studies we can rule out both nature and nurture as a cause of homosexuality. But that doesn't seem right does it?

Perhaps, we can find the answer in an altogether unrelated topic, which may be extremely relevant (confused?). Let's look at left-handedness.

If EVER there was a trait that seems unquestionably biological in nature and unquestionably genetic --- it must be handedness. And since it is unquestionably genetic then we know for a FACT that mono zygotic twins would all have the same handedness. No doubt, right?

Studies cited here (http://hcs.harvard.edu/%7Ehusn/BRAIN/vol2/left.html) may confound the issue altogether. They show that if your father is left handed, you stand a 1 in ten chance of also being left handed. If your mother is left handed you stand a 2 in ten chance of being left handed. And if both of your parents are left handed you stand a 40 percent chance of being left handed. Okay, so that sounds like it is genetic. So, let's look at those mono zygotic twins and what they reveal about genetics:

Mono zygotic twins share left handedness 76 percent of the time. Clearly a very high concordance rate. But it is not a 100 percent as you would expect --- remember they share the SAME exact genes! So what gives?

The theory on left handedness is that right handedness may be a dominant trait that is present in all people such that even when you have the gene for left handedness you still may turn out right handed. Thus, twins with the same exact genes could be exposed to slightly different hormonal levels in the womb thus accounting for the fact that 24% of the time they do not share the same handedness. WAIT--- hormonal exposures in the womb? Doesn't that sound familiar? Something along the lines of the theories into homosexuality.

Could it be that homosexuals are like left handed people in the sense that they do have a gene that determines their homosexuality, but that they also have a dormant set of genes that is related to heterosexuality? In other words, the reason that one mono zygotic twin turns out to be gay while the other is straight is that while they both have the "gay gene," they both have a "straight gene," but one of them were exposed to certain hormonal levels in the womb which "activated" the gay gene, leaving the "straight gene" dormant, while the other, not exposed to the same hormonal infusion had his gay gene lay dormant while the dominant "straight gene" was activated.

There have been no studies to successfully link social environmental factors to homosexuality. There have been some studies that have linked some biological traits to homosexuality (hypothalamus size, anterior commissure in the brain are different sizes than in heterosexual males), cognitive studies show that gay males perform more like females than heterosexual males in such task as visual spatial tasks, and studies of gay male brain patterns demonstrate similarities with straight females in the way gay males process verbal and spatial tasks.

So, what do twin studies really show us? Twin studies show us something far more fascinating than the root causes of homosexuality. Aha! Eat your heart out biologists! It seems that even sharing the same EXACT DNA, we can still all be unique individual human beings with our own quirks, sexualities and, even, handedness.

And on one more note: There is no proof that Dark Matter exists, but scientists know that it does. I guess it's just "brain damage."

[Ike]

Could it be that homosexuals are like left handed people in the sense that they do have a gene that determines their homosexuality, but that they also have a dormant set of genes that is related to heterosexuality? In other words, the reason that one mono zygotic twin turns out to be gay while the other is straight is that while they both have the "gay gene," they both have a "straight gene," but one of them were exposed to certain hormonal levels in the womb which "activated" the gay gene, leaving the "straight gene" dormant, while the other, not exposed to the same hormonal infusion had his gay gene lay dormant while the dominant "straight gene" was activated.


Why does the hormonal exposure have to happen in the womb? I would think that there is the chance that twins who do not share the same orientation could be possibly explained rather than by hormonal influences in the womb, then slight differences in exposure to environmental effects at a young age possibly. IOW, mebbe they have to a) have the gene, and b) have some environmental exposure as a child to catch the gay.

[TexasLidig8r]

Nice threadjack.

The GOP lost the race for several reasons, one of the more important ones was, like a bad trial attorney, it allowed the Democrats to "frame the issues" for the consideration of the jury (American people). Dems were allowed to link McCain to the Bush Administration at a time when Bush's approval rating was hovering on the same level as Brent Venables.

It wasn't until the 3rd debate when McCain said, "If you wanted to run against Bush, you should have run 4 years ago." He should have come out of the gate with that and then gone directly on the attack, i.e., and by the way, what were you doing 4 years ago? How were you helping the country? Then pounded on Obama's relative inexperience.

Obama framed and talked about the issues and McCain was put in a defensive posture.

The GOP desparately needs an infusion of young, creative, intelligent, leadership.... its hanging on to the old guard has resulted in dissension and an inability to articulate a vision that more Americans can embrace.

[TUSooner]

Nice threadjack.

****

The GOP desparately needs an infusion of young, creative, intelligent, leadership.... its hanging on to the old guard has resulted in dissension and an inability to articulate a vision that more Americans can embrace.

Yeah, well, that's pretty much what I meant to say. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Why does the hormonal exposure have to happen in the womb? I would think that there is the chance that twins who do not share the same orientation could be possibly explained rather than by hormonal influences in the womb, then slight differences in exposure to environmental effects at a young age possibly. IOW, mebbe they have to a) have the gene, and b) have some environmental exposure as a child to catch the gay.Well thought. A good possibility to consider as well. I'm glad you brought it up.

Get it? GLAD? I SLAY me. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Nice threadjackLOL
Yeah, not really. I'm just so bored of having to have this type of discussion. I'm letting it drop so you guys can pull the thread back on topic.


Yeah, well, that's pretty much what I meant to say. :DAgain. My apologies. :O

[Crimsontothecore]

Regardless of the "conservative agenda" (which I endorse) the GOP campaign was more like this:

Not real positive, that. You should have stuck with the conservative agenda.

I've agreed with almost everything you've said but for the life of me I can't understand why questioning BHO's associations is considered fear mongering. To me it's a legitimate issue that needed to be considered more deeply. It should bother any American, democrat or republican, if the man trying to become the leader of our country has associations with men like Jerimiah Wright of Bill Ayers.

If this is fear mongering, how is it any different than the Obama campaigns strategy of categorizing McCain with Bush?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Nice threadjack.

The GOP lost the race for several reasons, one of the more important ones was, like a bad trial attorney, it allowed the Democrats to "frame the issues" for the consideration of the jury (American people). Dems were allowed to link McCain to the Bush Administration at a time when Bush's approval rating was hovering on the same level as Brent Venables.

It wasn't until the 3rd debate when McCain said, "If you wanted to run against Bush, you should have run 4 years ago." He should have come out of the gate with that and then gone directly on the attack, i.e., and by the way, what were you doing 4 years ago? How were you helping the country? Then pounded on Obama's relative inexperience.

Obama framed and talked about the issues and McCain was put in a defensive posture.

The GOP desparately needs an infusion of young, creative, intelligent, leadership.... its hanging on to the old guard has resulted in dissension and an inability to articulate a vision that more Americans can embrace.The problem with the GOP going to their youth and pushing the "Old Guard" out to pasture is this: younger people, meaning younger Republicans, tend to be less concerned over abortion, don't care about teh gays, and are generally more socially progressive. Their biggest concerns are the economy, the war and nation building in general, and tax reform.

All good Republican issues, but absolutely out of line, idealistically, with the socially uber-conservative evangelical Christians who have hijacked the party.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I've agreed with almost everything you've said but for the life of me I can't understand why questioning BHO's associations is considered fear mongering. To me it's a legitimate issue that needed to be considered more deeply. It should bother any American, democrat or republican, if the man trying to become the leader of our country has associations with men like Jerimiah Wright of Bill Ayers.

If this is fear mongering, how is it any different than the Obama campaigns strategy of categorizing McCain with Bush?It was fear mongering because it was shown time and time again by neutral 3rd party research groups to be baseless. It was shot down and refuted over and over and over, but the robo calls and chain e-mails kept coming around. Kinda like the "secret Muslim" B.S.

There was no good evidence to support the claims. That's why it was fear mongering. If there had been any real evidence, if there had been a little proof, then it would have been worthy of concern and investigation.

[TMcGee86]

The problem with the GOP going to their youth and pushing the "Old Guard" out to pasture is this: younger people, meaning younger Republicans, tend to be less concerned over abortion, don't care about teh gays, and are generally more socially progressive. Their biggest concerns are the economy, the war and nation building in general, and tax reform.

All good Republican issues, but absolutely out of line, idealistically, with the socially uber-conservative evangelical Christians who have hijacked the party.

When did McCain evar talk about abortion? I can't remember him bringing it into focus once. Nor gay marriage.

If the Republican party is more concerned about the things you suggest, why didn't they turn out in droves to elect McCain?

[Crimsontothecore]

It was fear mongering because it was shown time and time again by neutral 3rd party research groups to be baseless. It was shot down and refuted over and over and over, but the robo calls and chain e-mails kept coming around. Kinda like the "secret Muslim" B.S.

There was no good evidence to support the claims. That's why it was fear mongering. If there had been any real evidence, if there had been a little proof, then it would have been worthy of concern and investigation.

I'm confused. Obama didn't attend Wrights church for 20 years? He didn't hold his first campaign party at the home of Ayers? I heard these things stated as facts on the major networks.

[Scott D]

Obama has been against the right to own guns, said he wants to tax 401k's the left has done everything in their power to get prayer out of schools. Never heard anything about the flag burning and Obama at one time was a muslim and I have not seen anything that would prove or disprove that other than claiming he was a christian while attending a hate filled political rally that called itself a church which is centered around the black reformationists.

the conservative agenda is Lower taxes, less government, self responsibility and self reliance and following the constitution. The kind of logic that goes along with the "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach him how to fish.........etc.....

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Had the GOP won, there still would have been tax increases. Generally speaking most people get raises annually (excluding the commission only bracket), costs of goods increase annually for the most part, costs of services increase annually as well. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that taxes have to increase as well. It seems to be more a matter of where the GOP can hide increases since they like America as a whole seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around how to prudently cut spending. The same applies to the Democrats except they tend to be more up front about there needing to be tax increases, they just go about explaining it the wrong way.

The GOP in it's current state doesn't identify with conservatism despite what certain mouthpieces spew. McCain not resonating with the "hardcore" base isn't what lost the GOP the election. Palin not resonating with the "moderate majority" is what cost the GOP the election. The GOP message no longer resonating with the "moderate majority" cost the GOP the election. Moderate conservatives want more than lip service paid to "smaller government, minimal new taxes, and self reliance". Democrats learned after 2000 and 2004 that they need to find ways to appeal to the "moderate majority". The GOP just automatically assumed that they would get that vote, and now are left with egg on their face for their lack of effort.

[TMcGee86]

Can anyone name McCain's fundamental message?

I can't. And I'm about as repub/conservative as they come.

There is no nation shift because to be a shift, it would have had to necessarily start from one platform and desire a transformation to another.

McCain never provided that platform. His only real consistent message was "I'm a maverick." Which basically meant he has no consistent message.

It is impossible to win an election by transparent policies that seem to shift from day to day.

Say what you will about Pres-Elect Obama, but he has a foundation. It just happens to be socialism.

However as you see, when faced with a man who believes in something, and a man who believes in anything, the former inspires more hope than the latter.

[LosAngelesSooner]

When did McCain evar talk about abortion? I can't remember him bringing it into focus once. Nor gay marriage.

If the Republican party is more concerned about the things you suggest, why didn't they turn out in droves to elect McCain?The base did.

And they used Palin as the anger/hate mouthpiece to appeal to that base.

McCain lost this election when he lost the Independents and the moderates and Palin is the primary reason why he lost them.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Say what you will about Pres-Elect Obama, but he has a foundation. It just happens to be socialism. You really need to go look up what constitutes a Socialist before you say things like this. :rolleyes:

[tommieharris91]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Had the GOP won, there still would have been tax increases. Generally speaking most people get raises annually (excluding the commission only bracket), costs of goods increase annually for the most part, costs of services increase annually as well. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that taxes have to increase as well.

Your problem with this analysis is that (nominal) tax revenues do increase with inflation, but tax rates should not increase with inflation because that would be crowding out (real) take-home wages.

Say I make $40,000/yr, and my wage rate is indexed to inflation. Say I pay a 30% tax rate. So I end up paying $12,000 in taxes. Inflation was measured at 5% this year, so I get a 5% raise next year. Next year, I will make $42,000. My tax rate is still 30% (in real life, tax brackets move with inflation). I will pay $12,600 in taxes next year. If there was a 5% bump in the tax rate from one year to the next, my tax rate would move from 30% to 31.5%, and I would pay $13,230 in taxes in the 2nd year instead of $12,600.

See what I mean? Tax revenues increase with those annual raises, but moving tax rates with inflation would decrease take-home pay. (I think you reasoned that people would pay the same amount every year, no matter how much they made.)

Everyone gets scared when politicians start saying they they will take a larger percentage of people's earnings. So conservatives cut taxes. The problem is that there comes a point where they can't make ends meet, and they must run a deficit.

[mdklatt]

Can anyone name McCain's fundamental message?


:les: DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA!

[soonerscuba]

Say what you will about the tenets of socialism, dude, at least it's an ethos.

[TUSooner]

I've agreed with almost everything you've said but for the life of me I can't understand why questioning BHO's associations is considered fear mongering. To me it's a legitimate issue that needed to be considered more deeply. It should bother any American, democrat or republican, if the man trying to become the leader of our country has associations with men like Jerimiah Wright of Bill Ayers.

If this is fear mongering, how is it any different than the Obama campaigns strategy of categorizing McCain with Bush?

Sheesh. Read carefully and stop making responses a question you want to hear:
I proposed that the GOP needs a positive message of vision. Bashing Obama - even if every words is true - is not a positive message about what the GOP can do for the USA. Likewise, whether the Donkeys go negative has nothing whatsoever to do with my original proposition that the GOP needs to present a positive vision. (It's also a stupid "wrong + wrong = right" argument.) My proposal is much simpler than you think, and - whatever their merits - your posts are nonresponsive to my proposition. If you disagree with my proposition, fine, but understand what I'm saying before you start regurgitating irrelevant arguments.

[mdklatt]

Say what you will about the tenets of socialism, dude, at least it's an ethos.

But it's evil! It's theft! Even when democracies voluntarily impose it on themselves, it's still somehow theft! And evil! Grumble grumble grumble.

[TMcGee86]

You really need to go look up what constitutes a Socialist before you say things like this. :rolleyes:


Sorry, communisim.

Better? :rolleyes:

Condesending much? I wasn't attempting to attack you. But I'll be sure and take more time out of my day to look up socialism for you. I get back to being a lawyer later, when I'm more well read so that I can properly speak with greatness like yourself. :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

I didn't get a "harrumph" out of that guy...

[LosAngelesSooner]

Sorry, communisim.

Better? :rolleyes:

Condesending much? I wasn't attempting to attack you. But I'll be sure and take more time out of my day to look up socialism for you. I get back to being a lawyer later, when I'm more well read so that I can properly speak with greatness like yourself. :rolleyes:I wasn't condescending at all. You were blatantly wrong in your assertion to such a degree that a simple dictionary or encyclopedia check would have illustrated it. If that simple refutation of your incorrect statement bruised your ego then that's on you.

And you're incorrect in asserting that Obama stands for Communism, as well.

P.S. - I know PLENTY of stupid lawyers. Not saying you're on of 'em, but acting like being one makes you smart is, well, not.

[Crimsontothecore]

Sheesh. Read carefully and stop making responses a question you want to hear:
I proposed that the GOP needs a positive message of vision. Bashing Obama - even if every words is true - is not a positive message about what the GOP can do for the USA. Likewise, whether the Donkeys go negative has nothing whatsoever to do with my original proposition that the GOP needs to present a positive vision. (It's also a stupid "wrong + wrong = right" argument.) My proposal is much simpler than you think, and - whatever their merits - your posts are nonresponsive to my proposition. If you disagree with my proposition, fine, but understand what I'm saying before you start regurgitating irrelevant arguments.

Geesh, Calm down already. I get your point. I was just pointing out the fact that the same type of fear mongering didn't hurt the dems and they didn't have any more of a positive message or vision. Oh, I forgot...CHANGE! my bad.

[TMcGee86]

I wasn't condescending at all. You were blatantly wrong in your assertion to such a degree that a simple dictionary or encyclopedia check would have illustrated it. If that simple refutation of your incorrect statement bruised your ego then that's on you.

And you're incorrect in asserting that Obama stands for Communism, as well.

P.S. - I know PLENTY of stupid lawyers. Not saying you're on of 'em, but acting like being one makes you smart is, well, not.

Well I'm no artist or whatever you are so I must not be enlightened enough to realize that social medicine, spreading wealth, and authorizing civilian armies is nothing like socialism or communism.

My bad.

I don't suppose you'd like to refresh my memory on what exactly it is that Obama stands for?

[mdklatt]

I was just pointing out the fact that the same type of fear mongering didn't hurt the dems and they didn't have any more of a positive message or vision.

America disagreed. Why do you hate America?

[Stoop Dawg]

But it's evil! It's theft! Even when democracies voluntarily impose it on themselves, it's still somehow theft! And evil! Grumble grumble grumble.

Shouldn't this be in the "extreme exaggerations" thread?

[Crimsontothecore]

America disagreed. Why do you hate America?

I guess I don't watch enough Oprah to be well rounded.

[mdklatt]

Shouldn't this be in the "extreme exaggerations" thread?

I agree that's an extreme exaggeration to equate socialism with theft, but it frequently happens.

[Stoop Dawg]

Fighting fire with fire only leads to a bigger fire.

[TexasLidig8r]

McCain - No ascertainable message or vision +

McCain's inability to show Obama had no message other than to say "Change" +

McCain's handlers and the Repubs strategists ought to be taken out and horsewhipped for incompetence +

McCain could not entertain +

Many Americans in this "Me Right Now - Texting Whatever" generation want to be entertained =

EPIC FAILURE.

[85Sooner]

McCain - No ascertainable message or vision +

McCain's inability to show Obama had no message other than to say "Change" +

McCain's handlers and the Repubs strategists ought to be taken out and horsewhipped for incompetence +

McCain could not entertain +

Many Americans in this "Me Right Now - Texting Whatever" generation want to be entertained =

EPIC FAILURE.

Right on target!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Spek

[mdklatt]

Fighting fire with fire only leads to a bigger fire.

Tell that to Red Adair, smart guy. :D

[OklahomaRed]

Time is money. The government starts taking more of my money than my time is worth, then I will simply spend less time making money and get in line with everyone else. That sound like a real good economic plan to me!!

mdklatt - I don't hate America. I just hate people from the west coast and the east coast. I say red states ought to start their own country and then we will have a contest to see which country does best? Your's with gay marriage, record state budget deficits, and zero population growth with ever increasing abortions; or, the red states with productivity, real marriage, children that are born, and sound fiscal policy such as spending less than you make. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Well I'm no artist or whatever you are so I must not be enlightened enough to realize that social medicine, spreading wealth, and authorizing civilian armies is nothing like socialism or communism.

My bad.

I don't suppose you'd like to refresh my memory on what exactly it is that Obama stands for?You may not be an "artist," but you sure are overly sensitive.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Time is money. The government starts taking more of my money than my time is worth, then I will simply spend less time making money and get in line with everyone else. That sound like a real good economic plan to me!!

mdklatt - I don't hate America. I just hate people from the west coast and the east coast. I say red states ought to start their own country and then we will have a contest to see which country does best? Your's with gay marriage, record state budget deficits, and zero population growth with ever increasing abortions; or, the red states with productivity, real marriage, children that are born, and sound fiscal policy such as spending less than you make. :DAside from completely missing the reality of what positions/policies each new country you propose would ACTUALLY have...

You REALLY think that if somehow the "Red States" separated from the "Blue States" and you lost the vile and hated EAST and WEST COASTS, that your new Evangelical Christian nation would "do better?"

Wow. You do live in a dream world.

[soonerscuba]

mdklatt - I don't hate America. I just hate people from the west coast and the east coast. I say red states ought to start their own country and then we will have a contest to see which country does best? Your's with gay marriage, record state budget deficits, and zero population growth with ever increasing abortions; or, the red states with productivity, real marriage, children that are born, and sound fiscal policy such as spending less than you make. :DI know you are totally joking, but you might check out the federal allocation of tax dollars, a lot of red states would be in aqua muy caliente if they had to fend for themselves.

[OklahomaRed]

Aside from completely missing the reality of what positions/policies each new country you propose would ACTUALLY have...

You REALLY think that if somehow the "Red States" separated from the "Blue States" and you lost the vile and hated EAST and WEST COASTS, that your new Evangelical Christian nation would "do better?"

Wow. You do live in a dream world.

Joking. OMG. However, you do prove my point is saying that west coasters think they are smarter just "cause" they live in California. Question, is California in line for a bail out or not?

Yes? Why? You would figure with all the smart people there their own state economy would be prospering? Last time I checked Texas' economy was in the black and they are NOT in line for a Federal bailout?

What about New York? Are they in line? Is their state economy in the red or black?

Just wondering? :D

Also, why do you say I am a Christian? Because of my stance on abortion or marriage? Maybe I just don't like killing unborn kids?

[TUSooner]

Geesh, Calm down already. I get your point. I was just pointing out the fact that the same type of fear mongering didn't hurt the dems and they didn't have any more of a positive message or vision. Oh, I forgot...CHANGE! my bad.

My apologies for sheeshing you :D

Whether you liked the donkeys' message or not (and I'd guess you did not), "Change" and "Yes we can" - however facile and ambiguous - are more positive that "not him (cuz he's the Devil and Stalin rolled into one)". And yes the donkeys did have plenty of anti-Bush themes, but Obama did spend a lot of time talking a bout good stuff he would do tat was different, like nationalizing zymurgy, etc. :eek:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Joking. OMG. However, you do prove my point is saying that west coasters think they are smarter just "cause" they live in California. Question, is California in line for a bail out or not?

Yes? Why? You would figure with all the smart people there their own state economy would be prospering? Last time I checked Texas' economy was in the black and they are NOT in line for a Federal bailout?

What about New York? Are they in line? Is their state economy in the red or black?

Just wondering? :D

Also, why do you say I am a Christian? Because of my stance on abortion or marriage? Maybe I just don't like killing unborn kids?Question: How do I prove your point in any way with that statement?

Answer: I don't.

Carry on.

[Scott D]

Your problem with this analysis is that (nominal) tax revenues do increase with inflation, but tax rates should not increase with inflation because that would be crowding out (real) take-home wages.

Say I make $40,000/yr, and my wage rate is indexed to inflation. Say I pay a 30% tax rate. So I end up paying $12,000 in taxes. Inflation was measured at 5% this year, so I get a 5% raise next year. Next year, I will make $42,000. My tax rate is still 30% (in real life, tax brackets move with inflation). I will pay $12,600 in taxes next year. If there was a 5% bump in the tax rate from one year to the next, my tax rate would move from 30% to 31.5%, and I would pay $13,230 in taxes in the 2nd year instead of $12,600.

See what I mean? Tax revenues increase with those annual raises, but moving tax rates with inflation would decrease take-home pay. (I think you reasoned that people would pay the same amount every year, no matter how much they made.)

Everyone gets scared when politicians start saying they they will take a larger percentage of people's earnings. So conservatives cut taxes. The problem is that there comes a point where they can't make ends meet, and they must run a deficit.

I didn't reason that people would have the same amount paid each year. Rather, I referenced it that because costs will continue to increase no matter what. The hike in those taxes is in relation to the cost growth outpacing the income growth. The ideal situation would be one in which the tax rate stays constant but the spending decreases. That would lead to the tax rate decreasing, at least in an ideal situation. That being said, I stand by the statement that had the GOP won, the tax increases would have come, they just would have been disguised quite a bit differently.

[Stoop Dawg]

Tell that to Red Adair, smart guy. :D

There is waaaaaaay too much oxygen for that technique to work around here.

[TMcGee86]

You may not be an "artist," but you sure are overly sensitive.

How am I being overly sensetive? The only reason I reacted was because your initial response seemed to be attacking me, when I couldn't remember actually making a point that was worthy of attack. I didn't even say Obama's message was wrong, just that I consider it to be socialism.

I'm still not trying to be sensitive, I just wanted you to know I'm not some brainless mouth-breather that spouts off about the evil commie terrorist Obama.

I didn't vote for the guy, and I dont happen to agree with most of what I have seen to be his policies, but I respect the office and I'm pulling for him to win me over.

[Stitch Face]

Question: How do I prove your point in any way with that statement?

Answer: I don't.

Carry on.

You like to point out when others don't adequately answer your questions, but you seem to dodge and pivot and smirk a bit yourself. So why is California so F'd up and broke when it has so many natural resources and tourism and oceanfront property and beautiful enlightened people? I've actually wondered this for a long time. And where does all the energy go that you supposedly don't have? It's not like you have to burn fuel protecting yourself from inclement weather.

P.S. I find it un-ironic that Zoolander is your avatar.

[Frozen Sooner]

You like to point out when others don't adequately answer your questions, but you seem to dodge and pivot and smirk a bit yourself. So why is California so F'd up and broke when it has so many natural resources and tourism and oceanfront property and beautiful enlightened people? I've actually wondered this for a long time. And where does all the energy go that you supposedly don't have? It's not like you have to burn fuel protecting yourself from inclement weather.

P.S. I find it un-ironic that Zoolander is your avatar.

The Reagan tax revolution and Prop 13.

;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

How am I being overly sensetive? The only reason I reacted was because your initial response seemed to be attacking me, when I couldn't remember actually making a point that was worthy of attack. I didn't even say Obama's message was wrong, just that I consider it to be socialism. I certainly wasn't attacking you. Ask anyone around here. When I attack someone, I'm pretty clear about it. I use a bajillion *rolleyes* and everything. It's pretty obnoxious. ;)


I'm still not trying to be sensitive, I just wanted you to know I'm not some brainless mouth-breather that spouts off about the evil commie terrorist Obama. Never said/thought you were one. But what you said was factually incorrect, and that's what I said. Calling Obama a "Socialist" or a "Communist" is both factually incorrect and intellectually lazy.


I didn't vote for the guy, and I dont happen to agree with most of what I have seen to be his policies, but I respect the office and I'm pulling for him to win me over.Ditto for me. I didn't vote for him. I don't agree with quite a few of his policies. But I also respect that he's been elected as our President by a clear majority and has a mandate. He has my loyalty and my respect for the milestone he's achieved. I appreciate him for running a positive campaign with a constructive, inclusive platform, and I hope he does an amazing job for all of us.

The only person in this entire election who makes me angry is Palin, but that's a topic for a different conversation.


You like to point out when others don't adequately answer your questions, but you seem to dodge and pivot and smirk a bit yourself. So why is California so F'd up and broke when it has so many natural resources and tourism and oceanfront property and beautiful enlightened people? I've actually wondered this for a long time. And where does all the energy go that you supposedly don't have? It's not like you have to burn fuel protecting yourself from inclement weather.

P.S. I find it un-ironic that Zoolander is your avatar.I pointed it out because he simply DIDN'T. And I don't dodge anything. I'm well known for answering any damn thing that you ask me as long as it's not some stupid mindless drivel, and even then I'll sometimes give an answer.

With that in mind, Cali is in the situation it's in because it's run my mega Liberals who have more social programs and entitlement programs and safety nets and special interests than ANY other state and they tax us to death to support all of those idiotic and unnecessary things. And it pisses me off to no end. We don't NEED all these social programs, but we sure as heck got 'em.

The energy doesn't so much as GO other places as it is TRUCKED IN to the state because almost all of Southern California is a desert. So we use MASSIVE amounts of energy to get clean water into the state for drinking and irrigation for all of our crops. We also use massive amounts of energy from the Hoover Dam to power most of So Cal even though we've got a nuclear power plant just down the road near Seal Beach and mega wind farms on the road out to Palm Springs and up on the way to the Southern Sierras.

That energy is used up throughout Silicon Valley at all of the tech facilities and throughout all of the factories and plants we have out here. It also goes into Long Beach Harbor which is the primary harbor/port for the entire U.S. west of the Mississippi.

Then you throw all the massive amounts of people who we have coming out here every year using up those resources and spread it out over an area larger than most of the other states in the U.S. ... and you get my point.

So, yeah. We've got a huge economy, massive amounts of production and industry, tons and tons of money...and we find a way to use every damn penny of it up and then some. I've NEVER said we were perfect. Far from it.

But we've got some derned nice wimmins and great weather. :D

As for the Zoolander comment, nice try at a cheap shot, but it doesn't hurt. You don't know the backstory of why I changed my Avatar to Zoolander, so you don't get it that you don't get it.

[BudSooner]

And bingo.

And some nasty *** tater salad.:eek:

[Stitch Face]

As for the Zoolander comment, nice try at a cheap shot, but it doesn't hurt. You don't know the backstory of why I changed my Avatar to Zoolander, so you don't get it that you don't get it.

But that's the beauty of avatars on an anonymous innerweb; you don't have to know why someone chose theirs for it to still be a perfectly accurate representation!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Nice try

[Stitch Face]

Nice try

Ouch. I've seen others fall to your rapier wit but I'll admit, I wasn't ready for "nice try." You win.



(For those of you who don't understand the true impact of his remark- he was totally doing 'Blue Steel' when he said it.)

[85Sooner]

Joking. OMG. However, you do prove my point is saying that west coasters think they are smarter just "cause" they live in California. Question, is California in line for a bail out or not?

Yes? Why? You would figure with all the smart people there their own state economy would be prospering? Last time I checked Texas' economy was in the black and they are NOT in line for a Federal bailout?

What about New York? Are they in line? Is their state economy in the red or black?

Just wondering? :D

Also, why do you say I am a Christian? Because of my stance on abortion or marriage? Maybe I just don't like killing unborn kids?

They can't grasp the concept between innocent life and convicted murderer.;)

[Half a Hundred]

The Reagan tax revolution and Prop 13.

;)

Yep. Half the state wants a functioning social democracy. The other half doesn't want to pay taxes on anything anytime anywhere. This tends to cause problems with budget issues.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Ouch. I've seen others fall to your rapier wit but I'll admit, I wasn't ready for "nice try." You win.



(For those of you who don't understand the true impact of his remark- he was totally doing 'Blue Steel' when he said it.)I love it. You didn't have the intellect to refute anything in my earlier posts so (probably because you couldn't understand any of it), instead, you tried to cling to a weak personal attack. A weak personal attack which isn't even an attack since the IRONY in my selection of that icon is completely lost on you. :rolleyes:

And now you expect me to lower myself to do battle with the likes of you? I'd rather pick my feet in Poughkeepsie.

[LosAngelesSooner]

They can't grasp the concept between innocent life and convicted murderer.;)
You don't understand the concept between life and a non-viable collection of cells. :rolleyes: