Heath Shuler Wins

#26
#26
give_him 6 said:
I like Heath. Got to meet him during a congressional visit for work. Never could figure out why he is a demcrat since a lot of his views are conservative?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Couldn't win as a repub when he started out.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#27
#27
OrangeVol79 said:
Social issues
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

My problem with this is... when you boil it down the social issues don't mean anything (really what honestly has been significantly changed there in the last 20 years?). However his party is no where near conservative fiscally. I'm not saying he should jump sides as I do believe that opens a can of worms that is hard to survive, but I just find that an odd mix of stances for a Democrat in today's climate.
 
#28
#28
Rock33 said:
Heath better figure out which side of the line he's on quick............ this ain't offense or defense ........its right and wrong.
Click to expand...

he better hope it's not like understanding an offense (actually we should hope that too)
 
#29
#29
BigPapaVol said:
Couldn't win as a repub when he started out.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

i believe the republicans asked him to run after his football career, but he said no at the time. I believe it was later when he decided to run for the welfare party.
 
#30
#30
OrangeYankee said:
My problem with this is... when you boil it down the social issues don't mean anything (really what honestly has been significantly changed there in the last 20 years?). However his party is no where near conservative fiscally. I'm not saying he should jump sides as I do believe that opens a can of worms that is hard to survive, but I just find that an odd mix of stances for a Democrat in today's climate.
Click to expand...

social issues and economic issues do go hand in hand.
 
#32
#32
utvolpj said:
so you can't have a balanced budget if gays marry? Can't pay down the deficit if some lady gets an abortion?
Click to expand...

when create programs after programs that are intended 'help' women who feel the need to have 4 and 5 children just to get more money doesn't help the economy.

when you allow illegal alliens to use government services doesn't help the economy and sends the wrong social message.

so yes, they do go hand in hand.
 
#33
#33
While yes those are moral in an honesty sense those are strictly business decisions the government needs to make as well. IE Abortion itself could be argued is none of the Federal Governments business to legislate but they dang sure should not be paying for them much like they shouldn't be paying for boob jobs either.
 
#35
#35
utvolpj said:
so you can't have a balanced budget if gays marry? Can't pay down the deficit if some lady gets an abortion?
Click to expand...

California's example suggests "no".

IMO, the fundamental issue that ties all of this together is personal responsibility.

If you want to have a homosexual relationship then that is your right but know that you are responsible for the undesired consequences- which may include a lack of acceptance by others and lack of access to some privileges.

If a woman has sex then she is responsible for the possibly undesired consequence of pregnancy. That does not give her a "super-right" to take someone else's life to avoid responsibility or inconvenience.

Balancing the budget is also about responsible behavior by politicians and the "adults" who elect them. Several states have balanced budget requirements in their constitutions. They force both politicians and voters to understand that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
#36
#36
sjt18 said:
California's example suggests "no".
Click to expand...

how so? They're broke because they're stupid with money and not because gay people live there

sjt18 said:
IMO, the fundamental issue that ties all of this together is personal responsibility.

If you want to have a homosexual relationship then that is your right but know that you are responsible for the undesired consequences- which may include a lack of acceptance by others and lack of access to some privileges.
Click to expand...

ok that's just ridiculous. If you are born a certain way you must just accept that you will have fewer rights. Brilliant
 
#37
#37
utvolpj said:
how so? They're broke because they're stupid with money and not because gay people live there
Click to expand...
They are broke because they are irresponsible.

ok that's just ridiculous. If you are born a certain way you must just accept that you will have fewer rights. Brilliant
Click to expand...

After literally billions of dollars and at least 60 years of research trying to prove a biological cause for homosexuality... none has been found. In fact, closer to the opposite. But even if it were a tendency to desire, that does NOT force anyone to behave in one way or another. While science has not proven a biological link, there is irrefutable evidence of homosexuals changing their behavior and desires.

So first off... there is no proof anyone is "born that way".

Second, a license is NOT a right. EVERY license has qualifiers determined by the issuing authority and those who empower them (voters).

I really struggle to understand why so many otherwise reasonable people here struggle so greatly with the concept of a "license".

Maybe this will help. A license is effectively state permission to do something. If there was a "right" to get permission then permission would not be needed to start with.

But back to the actual point- homosexuals know that many people object to their behavior morally. They know that most states will not allow them the same licensed privileges as heterosexual couples get. They are therefore responsible for how their decisions effect them.
 
#38
#38
sjt18 said:
California's example suggests "no".

IMO, the fundamental issue that ties all of this together is personal responsibility.

If you want to have a homosexual relationship then that is your right but know that you are responsible for the undesired consequences- which may include a lack of acceptance by others and lack of access to some privileges.

If a woman has sex then she is responsible for the possibly undesired consequence of pregnancy. That does not give her a "super-right" to take someone else's life to avoid responsibility or inconvenience.

Balancing the budget is also about responsible behavior by politicians and the "adults" who elect them. Several states have balanced budget requirements in their constitutions. They force both politicians and voters to understand that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

Best statement made so far. Personal Accountability is most of it and sticking to principals. Limited government that doesn't bail out every Tom, Dick, and Mary when they make bad choices. Good Stuff.
 
#39
#39
have no use for him as a congressman, at least he will have to sit in the back of the room. He should have stayed in the real estate business, no wait the dems killed that too, so next best thing is go on the public dole.(sic)
 
#40
#40
Fijivol72 said:
have no use for him as a congressman, at least he will have to sit in the back of the room. He should have stayed in the real estate business, no wait the dems killed that too, so next best thing is go on the public dole.(sic)
Click to expand...

Yep. Hopefully the House can defund Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac out of existence. Not sure they will though. Too many people like being dependent on BIG Brother to cover their A$$.
 
#41
#41
utvolpj said:
so you can't have a balanced budget if gays marry? Can't pay down the deficit if some lady gets an abortion?
Click to expand...

Thomas Sowell wrote a book called 'Conflict of Visions' that discusses why people tend to line up on the same side of issues. He argues that if you have a 'constrained' view of man you tend to be conservative and if you have a 'non-constrained' view of man you tend to be progressive. Progressives tend to strive towards a utopia since they believe man can be improved while conservatives think of everything as a tradeoff since they believe the basic condition of man will remain unchanged. I'm not sure how this fits into gay marriage exactly but issues like spending and abortion tend to be linked to your view of man and by extension the ideal role you see for government.
 
#42
#42
triadvolfan said:
Thomas Sowell wrote a book called 'Conflict of Visions' that discusses why people tend to line up on the same side of issues. He argues that if you have a 'constrained' view of man you tend to be conservative and if you have a 'non-constrained' view of man you tend to be progressive. Progressives tend to strive towards a utopia since they believe man can be improved while conservatives think of everything as a tradeoff since they believe the basic condition of man will remain unchanged. I'm not sure how this fits into gay marriage exactly but issues like spending and abortion tend to be linked to your view of man and by extension the ideal role you see for government.
Click to expand...

Thomas Sowell is a great man. His "Basic Economics" book is a good one.
 
#44
#44
I wish he had lost. NC had more than one seat the GOP should have won last night.
 
#45
#45
GoBigOrangeVols said:
This actually bodes very well for him going forward... he is a rising star in that other party.

A blue incumbent winning in the south during this cycle is a major statement.
Click to expand...

I'd say that it's a major statement about the people living in his district, and it's not a good one either.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top