I am indeed. Grew up in Houston, lived in Austin for 20+ years and have family all over the state (including Victoria). Blessing, TX is due South of El Campo, where my Grandfather was born.
My goodness.
Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)
- Thread starter Dylan
- Start date
- Status
My goodness.
Oh, I see. Thanks.
Credit to the sheriff, her officers and “Ranger”.
Well if you take a drive to Victoria don't blink or you might miss Smiley.
I went to U of H, so I know Houston well.
Here's the quote I was thinking of:
"How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can't have it all." Via twitter on 4/20/17.
Simply diminishing the right's policies asserted under the guise of religious freedom doesn't somehow equate to the left being supportive of religious freedom. There is a heavy push on the left to vilify expressions of faith that wasn't there in prior decades. See the outrage over the efforts by religious communities to decline to fund abortion/birth control, or the efforts to punish merchants who prefer not to participate in gay/transgender events, or the rhetoric around Mike Pence's wife working at a Christian school.
You shouldn't conflate my position that the left decreasingly cares about religious freedom and freedom of speech with arguments of persecution, as that's a separate claim. You won't find me on the front lines in the "War on Christmas."
The cores of both parties have that component. Both parties exploit those people, to some extent. But it's silly to ignore that there are people in that contingent who are "naturally" (for lack of a better term) aligned with the rhetoric/positions of their default party. Rural Christians who love guns aren't exactly beloved by the modern left. Such people can avoid conservative blowhards and still come away, correctly, assuming there isn't much place for you in the Democratic party.
I don't doubt the influence of Rush. I'm not a Rush guy but I've listened to plenty of conservative talk radio in my lifetime. But people are drawn to those voices, rather than the similarly incendiary voices on the left, for some reason. Often, it's probably because Rush is already speaking their language.
Right. The quote was supplied by @steveojcc and he explained the twisting by Dinesh D'Souza.
You made the claim the left is "not at all supportive of religious freedom" without substantiation and it is my responsibility to show how they are? While clearly it is not, I will try. In previous decades it was known to be correct and proper for largely conservative Protestants to vilify Catholics, Jews and other religious minorities. The persecuted were largely of the left and fought for their rights to be seen as equally American despite religious differences with varying degrees of success. That battle for religious tolerance and equality remains, even if somewhat diminished and even if the "battle lines" have somewhat shifted.
The modern Democratic Party is home to a vastly greater and deeper diversity of membership among various religions and those with no religion. There is a clear reason for this as the Democratic Party is more accepting and more open to differing expression of religion or no religion. Your specific place on the front lines of the "War on Christmas", with respect, has little to do with the larger claim of "the left" not being supportive of religious freedoms at all.
Hanging your hat on the differentiation between multiple houses and multiple yachts is odd, but it can't be easy defending the marked difference in what Sanders says and what Sanders does.
As for religious freedom, you originated the discussion about which party leads the way on religious freedom, and opened by telling me it was the Democratic Party. You've yet to evidence that religious freedom has a place in the platform of the modern Democratic Party, despite claiming that it's the party championing that cause. That's because, obviously, it doesn't have a significant role in the party platform. The ACLU, for example, recently reversed its support of the RFRA in recent years when it became central to the arguments for Christian exercise. This was followed by the widely discussed memo of the ACLU last year that debated case selection and the balancing of free speech concerns against supposedly marginalized communities. The ACLU is not the DNC, of course (the ACLU is far more philosophically sound despite its faults). But it did represent an absolutist civil liberties wing of the Democratic Party that largely ceases to exist.
The Democratic Party's tolerance for religious viewpoints that run counter to its social positions is declining (unless we're discussing Islam, in which case positions as to homosexuality, women, and religious minorities will be often be entirely ignored). I mentioned three broad examples which mark that shift, so I look forward to your thoughts.
I am an urban Christian who owns several guns as well as rural property. I don't feel unloved by the modern left nor do I feel as though the guns I own are going to be taken away from me by a leftist cabal in government. Those who do feel the way you describe, and for that reason, are more likely to have been influenced by the fear tactics of conservative radio and the NRA than by any actual policy pushed by the left.
First of all owning a yacht or two and maintaining it for a year would cost one about 1m minimum. If you decide to keep said yacht it will be about the same the next year so on so forth. Owning and maintaining a yacht permanently is expensive. That's what he was getting at. It's way more expensive than owning a home. It's a luxury a home isn't. Especially when one of his homes is the family home and the other is for work.
In most US states the price of two houses is about the same as owning a yacht and maintaining it.
Besides the point criticizing a couple for good financial health which enables them to own multiple homes is dumb, socialist or not.
Most importantly without context sure it looks bad but... His house in DC was financially better to own than renting given how long he has owned it and how long he has represented his state. He purchased it for his job. His wife was given a home in a will, it was an inheritance, which they sold and then purchased the lake home on the profits off that and her retirement money.
DeSouza and the right leaning mouthpieces on twitter all have multiple homes and used this without context to try belittle Sanders.
Modern socialism doesn't mean you cannot own stuff and be wealthy as long as you practice what you preach and for all accounts Sanders policies look solid on this.
Anyway don't a lot of conservatives vote for Republicans because they are wealthy and poor people see wealthy people as being powerful so its highly contradictory of these mouthpieces to try this tactic.
Leading with a misquote, repeating it and then parrying to my hanging my hat on the difference between yachts and houses says more about you and your argument than me and mine.
As for the platform of the Democratic Party, let me quote: "Democrats know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith in many forms and the countless acts of justice, mercy, and tolerance it inspires. We believe in lifting up and valuing the good work of people of faith and religious organizations and finding ways to support that work where possible." Further, "Democrats support progress toward more accountable governance and universal rights. As autocrats and strongmen around the world crack down on civil society and imprison those who speak out to demand greater freedom, we will continue to bolster groups and individuals who fight for fundamental human rights, democracy, and rule of law. We will support strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, and equality for women and minorities."
It's right there in the platform of the party.
You're the exception to the rule, and I'm sure you're quite aware of it. Actual policy of pushed by the left includes the reintroduction of the AWB. Acknowledging an effort to ban arguably the most popular sporting rifle in the country, regardless of whether the Democratic Party is willing to move on to confiscation, isn't exactly a "fear tactic."
Why are you so sure I am an exception and that I am aware of it?
Of course you are quite familiar with any number of leading Republican politicians who campaign using the claim the Democratic Party is going to repeal the Second Amendment. That is a persistent fear tactic not only of the GOP but the NRA and it is believed by a great number of registered Republicans.
I'd reckon it says I'm mediocre at recalling politician statements with precision, and that you're uninterested in defending Sanders' hypocrisy but want to damage my credibility in lieu of that defense - no?
FYI, this is the second (perhaps third) time you've failed to reply to the examples provided in response to your request.
Here's an aspirational quote from the GOP's platform.
"Our agenda is high on job creation, expanding opportunity and providing a better chance at life for everyone willing to work for it."
You have no reason to dispute the GOP is prioritizing expansion of opportunity, do you?
You will go around in circles with this guy and eventually he will tell you that you are being disrespectful or you are ignoring his point or trying your best to ruin his credibility. The same old story where the right leaning on here believe the left leaning are bashing them and ignoring their right to an opinion.
- Status