Myths about American politics...

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

I did not give them much though, but what are your thoughts on these ten?

- American politics is a bipolar contest betwixt "liberals" and "conservatives."
- Donors and interest groups oft buy the votes of most high elected officials.
- All American politicians are unprincipled, opportunistic, and lie to win votes.
- Democrats dislike free enterprise, and are disloyal to the U.S. Constitution.
- Republicans do not care about human suffering, poverty, or social injustice.
- The invasion and occupation of Iraq was centered on securing oil interests.
- Social conservatives are closed-minded bigots who reject science and logic.
- Liberals try to punish hard work, foster dependency, and repress Christians.
- Ones vote in an election does not matter because elites call all of the shots.
- Compromise and bipartisanship will yield the best solutions to our problems.

I actually agree with most of these.

The idea that one's opinions on gay marriage serve as a proxy for whether one is homophobic or not verges on the ridiculous.

How so?

[Purch]

The idea that one's opinions on gay marriage serve as a proxy for whether one is homophobic or not verges on the ridiculous.

How so?

It's actually a fairly simple concept, not supporting gay marriage doesn't automatically make someone a homophobe. I have friends who have openly gay friends, yet they themselves don't actually support gay marriage. Doesn't mean they have irrational hate towards their friends or that they fear gays but rather they just personally believe that marriage is between a man and a women.

I'm personally pro gay marriage but I don't classify everyone who disagrees as homophobic

[bore]

In my opinion it's homophobic to oppose for example, hospital visitation rights for gay couples, but thinking that these rights shouldn't have the name  "marriage" isn't homophobic, just something I disagree with.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

As I have said many times, I'm against in principle marriage and the military, so recently I've been very disappointed in the gays.

Anyway, a real list of American political myths would require a very long thesis (and would reach into topics far more fundamental than has been discussed so far in this thread. I.e: About the founding of the state, etc) but if I was do one of the current 'lazy' political discourse, I would say the idea that "moderation" exists (and is in any way desirable).

[crypto-fascist superhero]

It's more that supporting gay marriage doesn't necessarily make a person not a homophobe.  This should be obvious to any gay person who lives in a liberal area.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

In my opinion it's homophobic to oppose for example, hospital visitation rights for gay couples, but thinking that these rights shouldn't have the name  "marriage" isn't homophobic, just something I disagree with.

Why hospital visitation rights has anything to do with goverment policy is beyond me.  Heck, if you want to let your neighbor visit you in the hospital, I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed.  If the hospital wants to say no, then let them say no - let the hospital set the policies based on what's logical to make the hospital run well.

[bore]

Why hospital visitation rights has anything to do with goverment policy is beyond me.  Heck, if you want to let your neighbor visit you in the hospital, I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed.  If the hospital wants to say no, then let them say no - let the hospital set the policies based on what's logical to make the hospital run well.

I don't see what's wrong with the government guaranteeing a right for people to see their loved ones when they are in a hospital or prison, in fact that seems a fundamentally good thing. Besides as with so many other things, while it may not be desirable to have the government involved without them it would be far worse. If hospitals were allowed to set their own policy it would take a matter of weeks before we saw gays or unmarried couples being barred from one hospital or another, and that's not a price worth paying.

Removing a guarantee seems more a case of less government for less governments sake than anything which would help patients.

[Sibboleth]

If the hospital wants to say no, then let them say no - let the hospital set the policies based on what's logical to make the hospital run well.

What if the hospital were to enforce 'racial' segregation? On the basis that it would run better.

[Gravis Marketing]

I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed.  If the hospital wants to say no, then let them say no - let the hospital set the policies based on what's logical to make the hospital run well.

The argument is that there is no "logical" reason to exclude same-sex partners other than lack of empathy, inertia, and bigotry, and as human beings we're able to make that judgment.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

If the hospital wants to say no, then let them say no - let the hospital set the policies based on what's logical to make the hospital run well.

What if the hospital were to enforce 'racial' segregation? On the basis that it would run better.

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.  Obviously this doesn't fit with most of the SCOTUS cases that have happened, so I realize I often have to throw my perspective out the window on stuff like this.

[memphis]

If the hospital wants to say no, then let them say no - let the hospital set the policies based on what's logical to make the hospital run well.

What if the hospital were to enforce 'racial' segregation? On the basis that it would run better.

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.  Obviously this doesn't fit with most of the SCOTUS cases that have happened, so I realize I often have to throw my perspective out the window on stuff like this.

It wasn't the Supreme Court that ended segregation for private companies. It was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court had historically been opposed to such legislation, ruling the similar 1875 Civil Rights Act unconstitutional.

[Sibboleth]

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.

Thus speaks the blissfully unquestioning voice of a straight white able-bodied male from the suburbs.

[Progressive Realist]

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.

Thus speaks the blissfully unquestioning voice of a straight white able-bodied male from the suburbs.

Property-owner rights are more important than human rights! Get with the program!

[bgwah]

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.

Thus speaks the blissfully unquestioning voice of a straight white able-bodied male from the suburbs.

Hmm, I'd guess only 4 out of 5 of those are true.

[Mr. Morden]

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.

Thus speaks the blissfully unquestioning voice of a straight white able-bodied male from the suburbs.

Hmm, I'd guess only 4 out of 5 of those are true.

Inks is black?

[ModerateCoward]

If the hospital wants to say no, then let them say no - let the hospital set the policies based on what's logical to make the hospital run well.

What if the hospital were to enforce 'racial' segregation? On the basis that it would run better.

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.  Obviously this doesn't fit with most of the SCOTUS cases that have happened, so I realize I often have to throw my perspective out the window on stuff like this.

Yea... No.

[memphis]

Not to mention that an enormous amount of any hospital's income comes directly from the American taxpayer. It would make no sense for the government to be supporting such an awful institution.

[Rooney]

"The importance of one vote." All of the "one vote" stories are usually bullshiz. Also, I once lived in a small Iowa town where I did not vote for city council. My neighbor was the candidate who opposed the incumbent. I forgot to vote and he ended up losing by TWO votes, thus my vote for my neighbor would not have mattered anyway.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

If the hospital wants to say no, then let them say no - let the hospital set the policies based on what's logical to make the hospital run well.

What if the hospital were to enforce 'racial' segregation? On the basis that it would run better.

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.  Obviously this doesn't fit with most of the SCOTUS cases that have happened, so I realize I often have to throw my perspective out the window on stuff like this.

It wasn't the Supreme Court that ended segregation for private companies. It was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court had historically been opposed to such legislation, ruling the similar 1875 Civil Rights Act unconstitutional.

But the SCOTUS has upheld the CRA.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

From my perspective, I don't care what a private company does.  If they want to segregate, that's fine.  I won't associate myself with them, but I'd say that's their right.

Thus speaks the blissfully unquestioning voice of a straight white able-bodied male from the suburbs.

My background has nothing to do with my beliefs.  That's how I interpret the U.S. Constitution.  It's a states' rights issue, not a federal issue.  If a state wants to mandate companies hire 25% of their workforce from homosexual African-American populations, then that'd be their right too.

Come on, Al... you can't pull this card on me - you're not exactly Mr. Empathy of the forum.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

And just because I disagree with the way it was accomplished doesn't mean I disagree with increasing civil rights.  If a vote to amend the constitution to allow homosexuals to engage in civil unions came up (since I think the federal government should be out of the marriage game, I'd vote against any amendment involving federal government marriage), I'd vote for it.  If you wanted to pass an amendment saying Congress can pass laws against discrimination in employment by private companies, I'd vote for it.

I'm just saying that the Civil Rights Initiative and many SCOTUS cases following it didn't follow the Constitution as originally framed.  I argue that we shouldn't change what hte framer's meant to say - they supported slavery (at least a majority did) and discrimination... the CRI wasn't Constitutional under that framework.  Instead of BSing through the Constitution and calling it Constitutional (which makes a mockery out of the process and the Consitution), admit that the framers wouldn't have allowed the CRI and amend the Constitution.

[ModerateCoward]

there is/was a left

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

there is/was a left

Huh?

[Nym90]

Nathan, anyone who says that their background has nothing to do with their beliefs is kidding themselves. That's not a bad thing; your perspective is no more or less valid than anyone else's, and Al's implied ad hominem wasn't really productive here, but I do think your position is highly naive of the reality that existed in the US circa 1964.

The CRA is the textbook example of why government regulation of commerce is necessary and proper. One of the purposes of the Constitution (as outlined in the Preamble) is to provide for the general welfare of the people; the entire rest of the document was constructed specifically as a means of achieving the goals laid out there, and thus the Constitution should be read through that lens.

Any interpretation of its text must keep this in mind IMO. It would be extremely difficult to argue that the overall liberty of the people as a whole was reduced by the CRA.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I mean... of course my background has something to do with my beliefs, but I was a lot different than my political beliefs.  Sure, if I was an African-American Jewish person living in San Francisco, I'd probably have some different beliefs.  My point was merely (and perhaps I overstated this a bit) that my being a white straight male doesn't make me biased against those who are different than me.

And again, I'd argue that the framers probably did not want (again, as a majority - I realize there were those who opposed slavery) overall libertry for all people.  Does that make it right?  No.  But instead of trying to twist what the framers crafted to fit what we now see as right, we should just change it.  Arguing that the CRI fits into the Constitution as the framers saw it doesn't fit with the facts.  Instead of trying to force a square peg into a round hole, admit that a square hole should've been carved in the first place.  And who knows - in 100 years, our grandchildren may be saying that our square pegs were idiodic and that we should've had octagonal pegs.

My point is that the job of the courts isn't to change the size of those holes, it's to explain what can and can't fit into those holes.  It's our job as citizens to elect legislators to change the holes as necessary as time goes on, and when they don't do that, we can take matters into our own hands via citizens initiatves.