State Farm leaves, Blanco expresses "dismay"...

Re: Re: State Farm leaves, Blanco expresses "dismay"...

I missed Jindal's extreme views? What were they?
While I agree blaming Blanco for the State Farm leaving is absurd.
Equally absurd is the idea Jindal had some so-called extreme views?
I'm honestly not sure what you are referring to?
Is this the slippery slope argument that once you allow a prayer at a football game, next thing you know women are wearing burqas?
Or the slippery slope argument that once you don't allow gays to marry, next thing you know you are enslaving people because of race?

 

Don't mind JD. He thinks any politician who talks openly about his faith and advocates social responsibility and morality is "extreme." Don't get him started on the Christian Coalition. He is against gay marriage though.

You seem to be kinda unique in your political beliefs yourself M.O.M. On social issues, you seem pretty hard-line. But I can't figure out your fiscal/economic stances or your view on foreign policy. You don't seem to fond of business, you want to revisit the Bush tax cuts, etc., etc. So far, you sound like an old school Populist. How do you feel about the President's foreign policy and the War on Terror?

 

I don't know JD enough to label him.
But when I see someone post about extreme views with a mainstream US politician, I am always skeptical.
Economically, everyone who believes in a progressive tax and a social service system is called a Communist or Socialists.
Socially, everyone who believe that the Constitution contains no such thing as a right to privacy or a litany of other individual rights that are suddenly discovered, 200+ years after the fact is called a member of the Taliban or an extremist.
I'd also be very wary of a social liberal, politician or otherwise who is pro-homosexual agenda otherwise, but claims to be against gay marriage.
They know good and well that gay marriage isn't coming from the democratic system, despite the greatest advertising campaign for gay rights in American history, it will come from an activist Court which will pronouce it as a suddenly found Constitutional right.
That gives these actors plausible deniability.
Appoint and approve judges who are super activist on social issues, while ducking for the political cover of Ooops!, I had no idea the Courts would do it!
Their ability to suppress a smirk while playing that game is a true talent.
As far as the War on Terror generally and specifically the War in Iraq, I feel the Iraq war was Cheney's and Bush, Sr.'s War.
They wanted it, Bush, Jr. delivered.
I'm no Saddam fan, much like the Communist-Taliban comment above, I don't feel like being wary about this war makes one a Baathist though.
I'm really torn on the specific issue of Iraq. I think there are good and bad aspects to this endeavor. Unlike some issues, this one isn't black or white.
As far as the War on Terror, I fully support what Bush is doing, an separate it from the War on Iraq, which I do not feel are related, despite Bush's claims otherwise.
I am not in the camp of the civil libertarians on the War on Terror issue.
I know Ben Franklin said something about giving up personal liberties.
But in Franklin's time flying a kite was a progressive act.
Now flying a plane into buildings is a progressive act.

 

No exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. Simply put, Jindal believes that the STATE should determine that women should die rather than have an abortion. In other words, women are here to breed and nothing else.

Actually the unchristian coalition, to whom Jindal went for comfort and succor, is an extremist organization. They don't believe in proclaiming faith-they believe in putting their theology into secular law.

 

I'm not in favor of abortion, but agree with you it should be a political question, not a newfound Constitutional right.
That is quite extreme on your part to make the leap from saying that people who oppose abortion on the grounds that it is murder therefore believe that women are for breeding and nothing else?
I know it would be nice if we could deconstruct biology and allow both sexes to reprdoce perhaps through a series of law review articles and campaign slogans, and perhaps one day we will get a Supreme Court decision declaring such.
But in the meanwhile, the survival of the species sort of depends on women giving birth I guess, whether you call it breeding or motherhood.
I really haven't had much contact with Pat Robertson's fund raising efforts, but I know a good many religious people who hold views similar to that organization without being a part of it.
Finally, there is quite a bit of secular law with a religious background, starting with laws against murder.
Much of the anti-slavery movement came from religious roots and I don't believe that was a bad thing.
Same with the Civil Rights movement for black Americans and I don't believe that is a bad thing either.