WDYT?

Rummi302

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_wdyt-5?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:c2ba2e18-1680-471c-9a80-3a94d3746fbbPost:f733b0c2-0b39-4abf-970d-a7709b9b2940">Re: WDYT?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: WDYT? : The funny part about it is that I worked in gay nightclubs for years and my best friend is gay.  Actually, he is a gay republican, lol.
Posted by Blueyed228[/QUOTE]

<div>Our elected officials are way more extreme in their ideology than the mass public. But because we focus on them it makes us all seem very polarized. The truth is we're not, but we have the media telling us we are. I've rarely met a conservative that I wanted to call a homophobe or racist. And when I've wanted to it's because they actually were being one of those. And, heck, I want to call my elderly (Dem.) family that too sometimes. </div>

lindseyann410

Homophobia and racism are a stupidity that isn't bound by political party.

arwo

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_wdyt-5?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:c2ba2e18-1680-471c-9a80-3a94d3746fbbPost:8a9ad8c9-245a-44c5-a1a6-fa9a709eb564">Re: WDYT?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: WDYT? : I actually dont necessarily disagree with this, and I think its fine if thats the case moving forward and donors know that. I do have an issue <strong>if the game chaged after the fact,</strong> if that makes sense.
Posted by Blueyed228[/QUOTE]

But it didn't. Disclosure of donors has always been one of the rules for super PACs, which (as several posters have already mentioned) are a very new thing.

If you want to see who's donating to "liberal" super PAC donors, there are plenty of data here:

<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php</a>

MiLadyK

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_wdyt-5?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:c2ba2e18-1680-471c-9a80-3a94d3746fbbPost:44cb2429-def7-49ef-b448-aba13c1755bc">Re: WDYT?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: WDYT? : But it didn't. Disclosure of donors has always been one of the rules for super PACs, which (as several posters have already mentioned) are a very new thing. If you want to see who's donating to "liberal" super PAC donors, there are plenty of data here: <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php</a>
Posted by arwo[/QUOTE]

<div>Beat me to it by an hour!</div><div>
</div><div>SuperPACs have always had to disclose their donors, it has always been a public donation. Well, as long as your definition of always is "since 2010 when the things started"</div><div>
</div><div>Adn Pew data is really unarguable, as far as the wibbly wobbly science of polling goes, they're one of the most reputable. Its like questioning Nielson data - you may not like what the data says, but its the best data you're going to get. </div>

number55

I have nothing to add other than to state that using a sample size of 1000 people is fairly standard for all data collection. So long as the sample is reliable it is statistically relevant and the % that it is unlikely to change with an increase in size of sample regardless of how large the population is.  It sounds weird that 1000 people could represents the views of 350+ million but statistically they do. 

Blueyed228

Im not arguing about the statistic, im arguing about the relevance. It wasn't registered voters (from what I read) . People who don't care enough to vote don't tend to know much about anything when it comes to politics. So when they say they are liberal or conservative I question whether or not they really know what that means. So I don't take any political data, that doesn't survey voters only ,with much stock. To me its not relevant.

number55

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_wdyt-5?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:c2ba2e18-1680-471c-9a80-3a94d3746fbbPost:9d76056e-0821-42ed-85b2-f1ab842178a5">Re: WDYT?</a>:
[QUOTE]Im not arguing about the statistic, im arguing about the relevance. It wasn't registered voters (from what I read) . People who don't care enough to vote don't tend to know much about anything when it comes to politics. So when they say they are liberal or conservative I question whether or not they really know what that means. So I don't take any political data, that doesn't survey voters only ,with much stock. To me its not relevant.
Posted by Blueyed228[/QUOTE]

<div>Oh, okay, I get it, but that wasn't what you said in your comment...it was something to the effect of 1000 out of 330 million. That's where my comment came from.  Your issue is with the choice of sample, not the size. </div>

Rummi302

Er...the tables are based on registered voters only. 

That doesn't mean that you haven't felt attacked for being a conservative, just that nationwide conservatives are not an endangered species. Dems are actually decreasing in number from 38% of reg. voters to 34% (Reps are 28% - not that much lower). (Link)

Blueyed228

Rummi- I must not have read it right then.

But it does kind of prove my point, that even though some may "lean" more one way than the other, its not how they vote.  And how they vote is kind of all that matters (to me) in the grand scheme of it all.  The facts are that there are more (72 million) registered democrats to the 42 million registered republicans.  I do agree that the independants may tip the scale for the conservative leanings, but they tend to vote democrat, especially where I live.  (and I fully admit that i am probably super bias on the whole thing and have a bitter taste in my mouth about it because I live in a blue dog state)

I dont want to argue the validity of polls/statistics/etc because its territory that I dont know much about, but I still, personally, dont put much stock in it.  Especially since people on either side tend to be moderate dems or moderate reps. And maybe(probably) its because i dont understand how the numbers work. But I do appreciate what you had to say on it.  I learned something new about polling, and I love learning new things, even if Im walking away from this still not completely understanding it, lol.

Rummi302

Meh, I'm too academic. It actually takes the fun out of politics. All of our perceptions are based on our environment (where we live, what we watch, who we know). It's not surprising that being a Rep. in Massachusetts makes it seem like the world is teeming with liberals. My point is that its really a lot more balanced than that. But nationwide numbers don't mean much when you're talking about your own experiences. Both are valid but different ways to look at things - there's not a right answer.

I learned that the transvaginal ultrasounds are routine in early pregnancies. I really had no idea. I still think the point of these laws is to make it harder and more tramatic to get an abortion (such as having to return for a second appt. to actally get the abortion). But you showed me that the transvag. part isn't the portion of the law to take issue with. 

Blueyed228

Well, I can see how people would think making someone have an u/s seems wrong, but they really do have to do it.  Now, like Sarahplz pointed out, if the change in the law is to make the patient see the u/s or look at the pic or whatever, thats just cruel.  But i dont think there is a legal way out of making them have one.  They need to determine if the are in fact pregnant, and how pregnant they are.  So I get that.

Also, and im not 100% on this, but if you are earlier than 6 weeks or so, its really hard to see on a regular ultrasound.  Transvaginal is much more accurate in locating the pregnancy and determining the age.

Celles

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_wdyt-5?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:c2ba2e18-1680-471c-9a80-3a94d3746fbbPost:a8fd7f8e-ed8c-4475-924d-e28ff240f3c0">Re: WDYT?</a>:
[QUOTE]Meh, I'm too academic. It actually takes the fun out of politics. All of our perceptions are based on our environment (where we live, what we watch, who we know). It's not surprising that being a Rep. in Massachusetts makes it seem like the world is teeming with liberals. My point is that its really a lot more balanced than that. But nationwide numbers don't mean much when you're talking about your own experiences. Both are valid but different ways to look at things - there's not a right answer.  
Posted by Rummi302[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry I missed the thread while it was hot, but I just wanted to say that I agree and really admire the eloquence with which you've defended your position, especially since you can do it while remaining friendly and nonjudgmental (which is something that I often struggle with, as Blue can no doubt attest ;)). 

Also?  Being a liberal in Arizona, and especially a liberal at my particular company, makes it feel like the world is teeming with conservatives.  I know, intellectually, that the numbers are actually much more balanced nationwide...  but at the same time, realizing that my general election vote is basically meaningless is depressing as hell.  (Stupid electoral college.)

Blueyed228

Celles- are you calling me a racist you dirty hippy

Rummi302

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_wdyt-5?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:c2ba2e18-1680-471c-9a80-3a94d3746fbbPost:559291a3-34c4-4a04-9c4c-bbcd042c3c9e">Re: WDYT?</a>:
[QUOTE]Well, I can see how people would think making someone have an u/s seems wrong, but they really do have to do it.  Now, like Sarahplz pointed out, if the change in the law is to make the patient see the u/s or look at the pic or whatever, thats just cruel.  But i dont think there is a legal way out of making them have one.  They need to determine if the are in fact pregnant, and how pregnant they are.  So I get that. Also, and im not 100% on this, but if you are earlier than 6 weeks or so, its really hard to see on a regular ultrasound.  <strong>Transvaginal is much more accurate in locating the pregnancy and determining the age.</strong>
Posted by Blueyed228[/QUOTE]

<div>After this was brought up last night I read up on it. You are 100% correct. For someone who hasn't experienced this, it just seems awful to have to go through it in order to get an abortion. But it's also medically necessary, which should trump all else. Of course, I'd rather doctors decide how it's safest to conduct abortions rather than legislators, most of whom are men. </div><div>
</div>

Blueyed228

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_wdyt-5?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:c2ba2e18-1680-471c-9a80-3a94d3746fbbPost:bc90d2b3-c738-4f6c-8e1e-35a3622b016d">Re: WDYT?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: WDYT? : After this was brought up last night I read up on it. You are 100% correct. For someone who hasn't experienced this, it just seems awful to have to go through it in order to get an abortion. But it's also medically necessary, which should trump all else.<strong><u> Of course, I'd rather doctors decide how it's safest to conduct abortions rather than legislators, most of whom are men. </u></strong>
Posted by Rummi302[/QUOTE]

I 100% agree on this, and im pretty conservative, lol.

Rummi302

Out of curiousity, Blue, would you consider yourself an economic conservative, a social conservative (i.e., culture war issues), or both? You don't have to answer, it's none of my business really.

I see myself moving toward economic conservativism in many ways as I get older. But the emphasis on culture war issues and religion/morality just drives me absolutely batty. I'll become an independent the day the Rep. party eschews these types of issues.

Blueyed228

Im fiscally super conservative and socially moderate-conservative.  Abortion and most parts of the gay marriage fight I agree with.  But Im anti big govt and think many decisions should be left up to the states.

The "culture war" pisses me off, lol.

Celles

I want to smack everyone in this thread and the E thread who is all EVERYONE HATES ME BECAUSE I'M A CONSERVATIVE/LIBERAL/STALK OF SLIGHTLY ROTTEN BROCCOLI.  Especially people who preface it with "I admit I'm biased because I grew up in..."

If you admit that you're biased because of where you live or how you were raised or what most of your friends or family members happen to believe... why in the world would you insist on using your ADMITTEDLY BIASED personal experiences to make assumptions about the nation as a whole?  I DON'T GET IT.

Gah. 

Blueyed228

Celles- I guess for me, and sorry, but my personal experience is really all i have to go on, since im in the "conservative world" I pay more attention to it.  I see the things that people call conservatives, ie: racist, homophobe, religious freak, etc and I compare it to the things I hear about liberals, ie: hippy, tree hugger, etc and I think people are harsher on the conservatives.  I see actors who are afraid to admit it because they think they will not get work, I see Tim Thomas (Bruins player/Tea party) get effing crucified for not wanting to meet Obama.  Im not saying that the other side doesnt get it too, but I dont see it as much.  But if i dont see it because im not part of the group, then so be it,  but experience shapes opinion, and you will be hard pressed to convince me that some (not all) people dont feel that way about my side when I have experienced it first hand.

And maybe bias isnt the right word for me.  I think bitter might be a better fit?

That said, Im not discounting the fact that liberals get it hard sometimes, but I just dont see it to the extent that i see it on my side.

ETA: Its even happened on TK.  There have been people who flat out said "I dont like Blue because she is a Rep" and "Blue is a moron because she is a Rep".

Celles

Just for the record, Blue, I don't want to smack you.  I have no doubt about who would win in a scrap, lol. 

I'm not discounting the value of personal experience.  It's the act of extrapolating from personal experience to make broad, sweeping generalizations about "the nation as a whole" -- while at the same time discrediting any evidence, anecdotal or empirical -- that doesn't support those generalizations that I take issue with. 

I think you make some very valid points about the nature of the slurs used for conservatives vs. liberals.  All jokes aside, I would never assume that because someone votes Republican, she is racist, homophobic or anti-science.  However, the reality is that the extreme right wing of the party does contain these elements.  So -- while obviously and completely inappropriate to use pejoratively against all conservatives -- these words aren't exactly coming from nowhere, either.  The extreme left wing of the Democratic party has its share of crazies as well, but liberal extremists don't tend to be racist or homophobic, so these words can't be applied to liberals in general as insults, whereas things like "commie" and "hippy" (which are much less emotionally loaded) can.

Blueyed228

I dont think being racist or homophobic has anything to do with your political party, and its insulting that a very small group of conservatives who also happen to be racists/homophobes get used as the view of the majority of the party.

You are a racist well before you align to a political party.

Celles

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_wdyt-5?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:c2ba2e18-1680-471c-9a80-3a94d3746fbbPost:cc92ece0-9d16-4552-8eef-0eefacecd216">Re: WDYT?</a>:
[QUOTE]I dont think being racist or homophobic has anything to do with your political party, and its insulting that a very small group of conservatives who also happen to be racists/homophobes get used as the view of the majority of the party. You are a racist well before you align to a political party.
Posted by Blueyed228[/QUOTE]

Santorum is currently your front-runner.  :|

Blueyed228

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_wdyt-5?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:c2ba2e18-1680-471c-9a80-3a94d3746fbbPost:a3e7aea7-c204-48af-b9ce-98f7c979a3aa">Re: WDYT?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: WDYT? : Santorum is currently your front-runner.  :|
Posted by Celles[/QUOTE]

But not because he is a racist or a homophobe celles, thats what im trying to say. 

Blueyed228

And are you saying he is a racist?

Celles

Well, I don't think he's a white supremacist, if that's what you mean (unlike several of Arizona's elected officials...), but I do think he has some deeply ingrained racial prejudices.  He's made some thoughtless, race-related comments that -- at the very least -- demonstrate a shallowness of thought and lack of empathy and foresight that I don't want in an American president.  

And, of course, he is very obviously homophobic. 

Blueyed228

Do you consider him homophobic because he doesnt agree with homosexuality, or do you think he really does hate gay people?

Celles

Isn't Santorum one of those "hate the sin, love the sinner" types? 

Regardless, he considers homosexuality a sexually deviant behavior and therefore immoral.  That alone = homophobe to me. 

Blueyed228

i dont know Celles.  I think you can not support homosexuality and not be a homophobe.  There are many people who dont believe in it, but are the "live and let live" type.  But im sure we completely disagree on that, so ill just leave it where it is.