• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. Cuomo: Pro-life people not welcome in New York

Kobie said:
If you insist.



Let's see how many other negative things we can claim liberals have cornered the market on. Because libertarians are certainly never arrogant. :roll:
Click to expand...

No, some of them are pretty arrogant as well. They tend to make me disinterested in what they keep blathering on about. True, some of libertarian point are well worth considering, but then, they take it to an extreme and disinterest takes hold. I mean, really now. The Fed is there for a very good reason, I'm sure of it. I may not be able to express it very well, or completely, but the good reason for it exists. As do US troops station in various locations throughout the world.
 
Kobie said:
Apologies, but I need to snip for brevity and to address certain points without getting bogged down. I will attempt to retain as much context as possible.



No. His comments were directed at "extremist Republicans." Since that's what he said.



I don't know if you're aware of this, but under Gov. Cuomo, state taxes have been cut pretty significantly over the last three years. And there's been a whole mess of tax breaks for businesses under his administration (one of your articles was from 2011). NYS definitely had a problem with too high of taxation -- it's being brought into line with other economically similar states.



I think the left end of the spectrum has moved slightly over the last few years as a knee-jerk reaction to the disastrous policies of the Bush administration and the GOP when they ran the show exclusively for the first six years of this century. I don't think it's moved very far.
Click to expand...
I know of no Republican leader who has referred to "extremist Democrats" but they certainly must exist. But of course it is always Republicans who are referred to as 'extremists', not the loons on the left.
 
Grant said:
I know of no Republican leader who has referred to "extremist Democrats" but they certainly must exist. But of course it is always Republicans who are referred to as 'extremists', not the loons on the left.
Click to expand...

I believe that calling democrats communist or socialists kind of eqautes as being labeled a extremist.
 
Grant said:
Aren't there Democrat Communists and Socialists? How large a percentage do you think might be one or both?
Click to expand...

When I think of communists I think of Stalin. And as a democrat I am offended to be even compared to a monster like Stalin.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
When I think of communists I think of Stalin. And as a democrat I am offended to be even compared to a monster like Stalin.
Click to expand...

I really don't care if you are offended or not. Too many whiny Democrats get easily offended.

All you have to do is check the history of the Democrat party to see their support for slavery both in the United States and under totalitarian governments elsewhere. You should have done your vetting before you decided to become one of them.
 
calamity said:
Well, since there are countless god and country male republicans who rode the anti-gay horse only to be busted soliciting sex from male prostitutes, I suspect my screening process is more reliable than yours.
Click to expand...

Oh, you do? :lamo

I’m going to ignore your bizarre non sequitur here and say only that your “screening process” will never even approach mine. Why? Because while I might happen to vote for a gay atheist with good ideas and viewpoints I share, you’re going to vote based on whether somebody is gay and atheist.
:lamo
 
nota bene said:
Oh, you do? :lamo

I’m going to ignore your bizarre non sequitur here and say only that your “screening process” will never even approach mine. Why? Because while I might happen to vote for a gay atheist with good ideas and viewpoints I share, you’re going to vote based on whether somebody is gay and atheist.
:lamo
Click to expand...

How about a lesbian with a funny haircut? A poet with one leg? A bus driver who whistles?

The possibilities are endless.
 
Isn't it discrimination to simply not vote for someone solely based on their background? I would vote for a gay atheist if their politics matched similarly to mine. I would vote against an Evangelical Christian if they disagreed with mere (and there is a fairly large socialist movement growing among some Evangelical groups I would have issues with).
 
Grant said:
I know of no Republican leader who has referred to "extremist Democrats" but they certainly must exist. But of course it is always Republicans who are referred to as 'extremists', not the loons on the left.
Click to expand...

There are far more extremist Republicans in elected office than extremist Democrats.
 
nota bene said:
Oh, you do? :lamo

I’m going to ignore your bizarre non sequitur here and say only that your “screening process” will never even approach mine. Why? Because while I might happen to vote for a gay atheist with good ideas and viewpoints I share, you’re going to vote based on whether somebody is gay and atheist.
:lamo
Click to expand...
Like the rest of the Righties in here, you blew right past the point...why am I not surprised?

The openly gay atheist was used as a metaphor for "honest politician". Records indicate your Republican Gay is in the closet--hence, a liar. And almost all atheist politician pretend to worship god--also liars.
 
Kobie said:
There are far more extremist Republicans in elected office than extremist Democrats.
Click to expand...

From your perspective, I can see that you believe that. From my perspective, the opposite applies, although my respect for both republicans and democrats is diminishing over time regardless of their views. It increasingly seems that politicians point to their polar opposite and declare, "At least I'm not that!"
 
Grant said:
How about a lesbian with a funny haircut? A poet with one leg? A bus driver who whistles?

The possibilities are endless.
Click to expand...

And yet hopelessly narrow. ;)
 
calamity said:
Like the rest of the Righties in here, you blew right past the point...why am I not surprised?

The openly gay atheist was used as a metaphor for "honest politician". Records indicate your Republican Gay is in the closet--hence, a liar. And almost all atheist politician pretend to worship god--also liars.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I had to stop with "The openly gay atheist was used as a metaphor for 'honest politician.'"
 
nota bene said:
Sorry, I had to stop with "The openly gay atheist was used as a metaphor for 'honest politician.'"
Click to expand...
Who could be more honest than someone seeking office in this backassward American society while freely admitting they are Gay and Atheist?
 
Kobie said:
Oy vey.

As I said, I thought his statement was inelegant at best. But what he meant, in full context, is obvious. You try getting elected in any but the absolute reddest parts of NY State as a Louie Gohmert/Steve King type and see how fast your ass gets sent packing. He wasn't delivering a mandate, he was simply stating simple fact when it comes to the New York State electorate. The Tea Party (rather, the politicians that run under the banner of the TP but are generally right-wing whackadoodles) has been roundly rejected in New York.
Click to expand...

And yet again, why did he have to make such a dividing speech? Do you think his speech brought New Yorkers together or furthered the rift that is already there? He has a lot to learn about leadership and the realization there will ALWAYS be people that disagree with you. His speech did nothing but divide people, not unite them.

You can try and justify, twist, or whatever you want with his speech. The fact remains his speech was a dividing speech and not a uniting speech.
 
calamity said:
Like the rest of the Righties in here, you blew right past the point...why am I not surprised?

The openly gay atheist was used as a metaphor for "honest politician". Records indicate your Republican Gay is in the closet--hence, a liar. And almost all atheist politician pretend to worship god--also liars.
Click to expand...
In truth your point is glaringly obvious and yet you still felt the need to explain it more than once. We get it, it's juvenile, it's amusing, but also a good example of how the left handles their vetting process.
 
Grant said:
In truth your point is glaringly obvious and yet you still felt the need to explain it more than once. We get it, it's juvenile, it's amusing, but also a good example of how the left handles their vetting process.
Click to expand...

The left has a lot fewer men caught soliciting sex from other men while advocating an anti gay agenda. :roll:

When it comes to a Rightie commenting about the "lefty" lack of vetting, glass houses comes to mind.
 
TheNextEra said:
And yet again, why did he have to make such a dividing speech? Do you think his speech brought New Yorkers together or furthered the rift that is already there? He has a lot to learn about leadership and the realization there will ALWAYS be people that disagree with you. His speech did nothing but divide people, not unite them.

You can try and justify, twist, or whatever you want with his speech. The fact remains his speech was a dividing speech and not a uniting speech.
Click to expand...

I never said it was or wasn't. I didn't justify anything, and I'm getting really ****ing sick of people accusing me of saying things I never said.
 
calamity said:
The left has a lot fewer men caught soliciting sex from other men while advocating an anti gay agenda. :roll:

When it comes to a Rightie commenting about the "lefty" lack of vetting, glass houses comes to mind.
Click to expand...

In Grant's world, "the left" is wholly deficient 100% of the time, and he never criticizes "the right" when they screw up.
 
calamity said:
Who could be more honest than someone seeking office in this backassward American society while freely admitting they are Gay and Atheist?
Click to expand...

If 'honesty' is your main focus on a candidate you certainly must have rejected Barrack Obama, despite his open and flagrant heterosexuality.
 
Kobie said:
In Grant's world, "the left" is wholly deficient 100% of the time, and he never criticizes "the right" when they screw up.
Click to expand...

How would you define "extreme Democrats"? What are their policies and beliefs?
 
Grant said:
If 'honesty' is your main focus on a candidate you certainly must have rejected Barrack Obama, despite his open and flagrant heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

Do you mean Barack?
 
Grant said:
How would you define "extreme Democrats"? What are their policies and beliefs?
Click to expand...

I define extreme Republicans as crackpots like Louie Gohmert and Michelle Bachmann who accuse their political opponents of being unamerican, who are willing to destroy the full faith and credit of the U.S. government to score political points, and who are utterly intractable with their refusal to even consider compromise with the other side. So I suppose extreme Democrats would do the same thing. They're out there, but they don't appear to be nearly as prevalent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom