Smart Republicans

[RandFan]

Sure! And while you’re acting crazy, include elves, talking horses, snails that do calculus, and smart Republicans. Go all the way, girl! :D Hey, I'm a registered Republican and I want to be the first to say that I resemble that remark.

[bjb]

I used to vote mostly Republican.

Not any more.

[Geek Goddess]

I'm pretty smart, if you judge by various factors such as job, degree, performance, IQ, and ability to converse with words of more than two syllables. I tend to vote Republican because the alternative is usually worse. Religion aside, I am just betting most believers of woo-woo and New Age crapola are not Republicans...

[Buckaroo]

I used to vote mostly Republican.

Not any more.

Same here. It's kinda hard to ignore the stunning anti-science turn the party has taken since being shanghaied by christianist neocons. The Democrats aren't without faults, certainly, but the level of true stupidity coming out of the Republican party over the last decade inspires awe. Too bad, too. I find a lot to admire in true conservative values, which the party has completely abandoned.

[Buckaroo]

Religion aside, I am just betting most believers of woo-woo and New Age crapola are not Republicans...

Don't count on it! In my experience, the two frequently go hand in hand, despite apparent contradictions.

[negativ]

While I have held my nose and voted Republican over the past few election cycles, I can't really think of (m)any who come across as especially smart. I can think of some "smart" Democrats, but the thick coating of slime the majority of them display is a distinct turn-off. I mean, who looks at Ted Kennedy and thinks, "Yeah, that guy TOTALLY represents me." ??

[Skeptic Ginger]

Same here. It's kinda hard to ignore the stunning anti-science turn the party has taken since being shanghaied by christianist neocons. ....That's the problem in a nutshell. If the rest of the normal Republicans (and normal Christians for that matter) could figure this out, we might actually have a democracy again.

[Skeptic Ginger]

While I have held my nose and voted Republican over the past few election cycles, I can't really think of (m)any who come across as especially smart. I can think of some "smart" Democrats, but the thick coating of slime the majority of them display is a distinct turn-off. I mean, who looks at Ted Kennedy and thinks, "Yeah, that guy TOTALLY represents me." ??Interesting point of view considering the current administration tops the charts as more slimy than any other in a long time or maybe ever.

Cronyism.
Blatant corruption beyond any in recent history (because I don't know distant past history).
Torture is not an American value.
Presumed Guilty not just before being tried, presumed guilty without a trial.
Holding prisoners for years, no writ of habeas corpus.
Suppression of information beyond all previous standards and then some.
Manipulation of the media surpassing all manipulation which came before.
Massive data mining including spying on American citizens in the USA without a warrant which they could even get after the fact.
Destruction of separation of church and state.
Borrow and spend.


My hand is cramping along with my brain, consider this the abbreviated list.

[Just thinking]

... the thick coating of slime the majority of them display is a distinct turn-off. I mean, who looks at Ted Kennedy and thinks, "Yeah, that guy TOTALLY represents me." ??

I know exactly what you mean. Just what is it about political life that attracts those that rank right up there with sleazy criminal lawyers and used car salesmen?

[Dave1001]

I know exactly what you mean. Just what is it about political life that attracts those that rank right up there with sleazy criminal lawyers and used car salesmen?

frankly, the low pay.

[Mr. Scott]

I know exactly what you mean. Just what is it about political life that attracts those that rank right up there with sleazy criminal lawyers and used car salesmen?

A few years back I saw a list of white collar jobs correlated to intelligence. Sorry, I can't remember when or where, but, I do recall the most intelligent were writers, and among the least intelligent were politicians.

People don't trust politicians who seem too smart -- a sad side-effect of democracy. Most likely the winning combination for a politician is to be smart but appear dumb. It's already been proposed by others that this gives southern politicians an advantage. (BTW my dad's a Texan with a PhD in chemistry who unlearned his accent). I think voicing support for creationism is a nifty way to appear dumb.

[geni]

Karl Rove, Dick cheney quite a bit of the seniour team in fact.

[Katana]

That's the problem in a nutshell. If the rest of the normal Republicans (and normal Christians for that matter) could figure this out, we might actually have a democracy again.
Actually, how about the "normal" among the Republicans and the Democrats put their differences aside and form a viable third party? I suspect that there are fewer differences between the moderates on each side than there are between the moderates and their idiot party-mates. How about that for democracy? For once, I would like to vote for a candidate that I like rather than the lesser of two evils.

[RandFan]

Actually, how about the "normal" among the Republicans and the Democrats put their differences aside and form a viable third party? I suspect that there are fewer differences between the moderates on each side than there are between the moderates and their idiot party-mates. How about that for democracy? For once, I would like to vote for a candidate that I like rather than the lesser of two evils. Agreed.

[RandFan]

Interesting point of view considering the current administration tops the charts as more slimy than any other in a long time or maybe ever.

Cronyism.
Blatant corruption beyond any in recent history (because I don't know distant past history).
Torture is not an American value.
Presumed Guilty not just before being tried, presumed guilty without a trial.
Holding prisoners for years, no writ of habeas corpus.
Suppression of information beyond all previous standards and then some.
Manipulation of the media surpassing all manipulation which came before.
Massive data mining including spying on American citizens in the USA without a warrant which they could even get after the fact.
Destruction of separation of church and state.
Borrow and spend.


My hand is cramping along with my brain, consider this the abbreviated list. Your list is not without some truth however it more closely resembles left wing propaganda rather than critical assessment of the situation and comparison to past administrations. :( Don't drink the kool aid.

[Ladewig]

Actually, how about the "normal" among the Republicans and the Democrats put their differences aside and form a viable third party? I suspect that there are fewer differences between the moderates on each side than there are between the moderates and their idiot party-mates. How about that for democracy? For once, I would like to vote for a candidate that I like rather than the lesser of two evils.

I can count on one hand the number of political statements that I consider dumber than "Two is the ideal number of political parties."

[Buckaroo]

Don't drink the kool aid.

Isn't that Bill O'Reilly's propaganda catchphrase? ;)

I'm just sayin'...

[fuelair]

I'm pretty smart, if you judge by various factors such as job, degree, performance, IQ, and ability to converse with words of more than two syllables. I tend to vote Republican because the alternative is usually worse. Religion aside, I am just betting most believers of woo-woo and New Age crapola are not Republicans...

So glad you said most - I don't believe in any of that crap and I will never (after shrub's annointment as white house resident in 2000) vote for any person for any office if they are republican (or green - thanks to the rectum breather Nadir[purposeful misspelling]. On the other hand, I am very happy watching what has happened to Tallahassee Harpie K. Harris - denied by the people she helped steal the 2000 election and possibly messing up (I sincerely hope) their plans by running anyway - it's been a laugh riot for me.
By the by, I don't hate non-politician republicans - just feel sorry for them. That does not extend to fuandamentalist xtian slime though.

[RandFan]

Isn't that Bill O'Reilly's propaganda catchphrase? ;)

I'm just sayin'...Could be, I don't watch O'Reilly. FWIW, the phrase has been a part of pop culture for some time. I think I first saw it on Usenet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet).

The phrase, BTW, is in reference to the mass suicide by the followers of Jim Jones.

It's a very good phrase. I can't think of a better one to replace it.

[Foster Zygote]

I used to vote mostly Republican.

Not any more.

I'd vote for another Ike, or heck, even another Nixon. Even Bush Sr. was far superior to his son. I hate the fact that if I mention that I loath GWB as worse that Harding and Buchanan put together many people automatically assume that I must be far to the left, just before they ask who Harding and Buchanan are.

Steven

[Marc L]

I'd vote for another Ike, or heck, even another Nixon. Even Bush Sr. was far superior to his son. I hate the fact that if I mention that I loath GWB as worse that Harding and Buchanan put together many people automatically assume that I must be far to the left, just before they ask who Harding and Buchanan are.

Steven

Yeah, but that goes both ways. If you didn't like Clinton, you had to be a far-right wing nutjob.

I think it's time for a new political party, personally. Having only two parties makes it too likely that they end up being fairly identical in the long run.

Marc

[Buckaroo]

The phrase, BTW, is in reference to the mass suicide by the followers of Jim Jones.

Yeah, Jim Jones was GREAT in the role of Powers Boothe... wait a minute, maybe I got that backward.

It's a very good phrase. I can't think of a better one to replace it.

I dunno. I find it more than a little ironic that a group dominated by people who believe that an invisible supernatural being will soon cause the dead to rise and they themselves to suddenly disappear from the face of the earth in preparation for an apocalyptic battle with another invisible supernatural being should choose as a catchphrase a reference to one of the worst religious atrocities of modern times.

[articulett]

Actually, how about the "normal" among the Republicans and the Democrats put their differences aside and form a viable third party? I suspect that there are fewer differences between the moderates on each side than there are between the moderates and their idiot party-mates. How about that for democracy? For once, I would like to vote for a candidate that I like rather than the lesser of two evils.

I think the problem here is that you end up splitting the vote. Scientists and those who believe in a strong separation of church and state are not a united voting block like the religious right. Their votes are divided among several political parties--including Libertarians, the Green Party, Independents, and those who don't care enough to vote--at least that is the case in America. So the lesser of two evils might not even have a chance at being elected. Iconoclasts aren't quite the voting block that those fearing damnation are.

Moreover, "secularists" are labeled as "evil" and "godless" and people like Katharine Harris are telling people that voting in such a manner allows these :evil secularists" to insert their "godless agenda" into politics. Ann Coulter and others do a lot of fear mongering too, so that religious people are afraid that voting for those other than evangelical Christians will lead to evil, doom, and assorted horrors having to do with going to hell in a hand basket. Religious people have come to believe that you cannot be moral without religion--particularly their specific religion...and that those who believe as they do fall under the umbrella of "good" and those who don't are "evil", dark forces bent on the destruction of family, religious freedom, the bible, the sanctity of marriage (as if) etc.

Salvation vs. fear makes people get out and vote. Secularism isn't such a compelling story...it's almost boring...it's "rational" and can't promise "happily ever after" or the thrill of fighting evil forces. It's a hard sell in a world of sound bites, I think.

I did just read Sam Harris' book Letter to a Christian Nation where he laid out why it's important that our governments be secular--he makes a very compelling argument, but true believers are taught not to trust such messages--to fear them--vote against them--shut their ears to them.
And Bill Maher, a Libertarian, points out that the Democrats don't stand for anything--they are not against religion enough...but how can they be, when the religious are such an "inspired" block of voters. Sam Harris points out that atheists are the least trusted minority in America, and that you can't expect to hold a higher office without professing to believe.

Dogmas are great for getting people to act (and vote) without thinking--people are moved by "ideals" and "emotions" and catch phrases and "fear" and the feeling of being chosen or special or having a specific purpose per divine authority--And once the religious snowball gets rolling, I don't know how you stop it. It seems to have gathered up a slew of Americans who vote similarly; wheras, those who oppose it split up their vote or don't vote at all due to a distaste of politics in general. Secularists and Scientists (some of whom are religious even) aren't a unified voting block, because how can you organize a group around something as prosaic as reality and a non belief in a supernatural overlord? And yet the United States Constitution has gone out of it's way to keep religion and politics separate--but the religious seem to have no clue in reguard to this fact. As other developing nations are becoming increasingly secular (particulary in government) and scientific; America seems to be turning into a theocracy where those who dissent are shouted down and labeled as treasoness or worse.

Secular societies are healthier. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html Evolution is a fact. And yet, the mere mention of it, makes Americans uncomfortable as a group. They hear it as "evil"-lution. I see this every day. There are so many exciting discoveries in the field, but the mere mention of it makes people go silent...as if they feel guilty for even revelling in some of our latest discoveries. And it is religions unsavory alliance with politics that makes it so. The people we are told to trust spread this disinformation and they encourage people to not trust science, facts, hard won knowledge, rationalism. It is religions coupling with politics that makes secular thinking something to be feared, and I hope that something somewhere can pierce this unholy alliance before this country gets any more divided on what an invisible guy in the sky wants (or whether he exists.)

As long as "faith" is seen as something "great", and "feelings" are promoted as good ways to "know something", then educating others in rational thinking and the benefits of secularism is going to be a tough job.

I wish I could think of a catchy meme for promoting facts over faith--because this idea that faith is something good is a notion that has infected many a mind--and it forms a strong barrier against reason. Why chance a blissful eternity by "biting from the tree of knowledge"?

I commend Richard Dawkins and his website: http://richarddawkins.net for his efforts on helping America out of this miasma of ignorance, and I hope we can come together enough to make progress.

[RandFan]

I dunno. I find it more than a little ironic that a group dominated by people who believe that an invisible supernatural being will soon cause the dead to rise and they themselves to suddenly disappear from the face of the earth in preparation for an apocalyptic battle with another invisible supernatural being should choose as a catchphrase a reference to one of the worst religious atrocities of modern times. When I said it was a good phrase I was speaking for myself. I don't believe in an invisible supernatural being so I don't think that it is ironic for me to use it. However I can see your point.

[RandFan]

I commend Richard Dawkins and his website: http://richarddawkins.net for his efforts on helping America out of this miasma of ignorance, and I hope we can come together enough to make progress. I think we should be careful to not overstate the problem. Though to be sure we should not underestimate the problems either. America is going through significant changes that many fundamentalists don't like and they are fighting back. There is a backlash from the liberal progress made during the civil right era. It is my opinion that in a couple of generations America will be far less religious than it is now. Freedom and democracy are powerful things. Many people don't want to give up football, baseball, fishing, hiking, and sports and other recreational activities in general on Sunday, R-rated films, violent video games, etc.. The culture war was decided a decade ago. Religion lost. I don't count religion out but there is no way that you are going to put the toothpaste back in the tube without an Islamic invasion or a large scale conventional or nuclear war. I say that in a sincere and sober manner.

[jazzalta]

Smart Republicans?? Oxymoron.

[RandFan]

Smart Republicans?? Oxymoron.I'm beginning to believe that an identification with any ideology calls into question ones mental abilities.

[Buckaroo]

Smart Republicans?? Oxymoron.

I actually know a few. True, I personally think they're misguided, but I certainly wouldn't say they're not smart.

[RandFan]

I actually know a few. True, I personally think they're misguided, but I certainly wouldn't say they're not smart.Given the current state of affairs it is certainly reasonable to conclude that many are misguided but then people being what they are it's not hard to find misguided people in any walk of life, ideology, etc.

The Republican party is certainly due much criticism at this time considering the over emphasis of BS platforms like gay marriage and I say that as an active registered Republican, but surely you don't think that all Republicans are misguided? That there is something intrinsic to the Republican party that would make membership unreasonable?

[articulett]

I think we should be careful to not overstate the problem. Though to be sure we should not underestimate the problems either. America is going through significant changes that many fundamentalists don't like and they are fighting back. There is a backlash from the liberal progress made during the civil right era. It is my opinion that in a couple of generations America will be far less religious than it is now. Freedom and democracy are powerful things. Many people don't want to give up football, baseball, fishing, hiking, and sports and other recreational activities in general on Sunday, R-rated films, violent video games, etc.. The culture war was decided a decade ago. Religion lost. I don't count religion out but there is no way that you are going to put the toothpaste back in the tube without an Islamic invasion or a large scale conventional or nuclear war. I say that in a sincere and sober manner.

I wish I could believe that...but I am concerned:

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060810_evo_rank.html

Faith does seem to be an impenetrable shield to logic and these pastor Ted super churches are growing...

I'm leary of any dogma that labels an entire group of people who believe differently as "evil"--that's scarier than labeling them dumb. You don't really try to kill and rally against and fight the dumb. But atheists are the least trusted people in America. And neocons aim to silence all those who don't tow the party line on both politics and religion. It has the momentum regimes are made off and the lack of rationality too--as there is this ever present clammer to drown out dissent and cast aspersions on those who ask questions. There is a powerful, connected, and wealthy group of people running our country who talk to an invisible diety and claim he is guiding them (and hence they have no apparent need of facts or advisors). People trust these "authority figures and those wingnuts the wingnuts they trust who are telling them that evolution is some nebulous theory and radiometric dating is a presumption and scientists are arrogant and secularists are responsible for all that ails America--(them and those darwinists and liberals who they all lump together under the umbrella of "evil atheists--). How any candidate pals in comparison to this is beyond me--even a drunken Ted Kennedy and a fellated President or someone boring or whatever other tangential issues some might have with other candidates. Isn't any candidate worth uniting behind to unseat the abysmal wake of scientific ignorance and backwards thinking and corruption left in the wake of this president's term (not to mention the loss of allies and world respect, the growing deficit, the greater divide between the rich and the poor, the divisiveness which encompanies our country. You are defending a group of people who would readily label you demonic--untrustworthy--because you don't believe in the invisible sky diety that they do.

Yes, there are smart Republicans...Hitchens is smart. Dennis Miller is smart. But they don't represent my viewpoint or the facts that are important to me on some topics that is for sure--nor are they particularly scientific. And I know you are smart Rand. But the skeptics I know that align themselves with this party (and I only know a few) tend to overlook a lot and ignore a lot and cover over a lot from my perspective--it reminds me the of the way religious dogma is softened or made more palatable or justified or spun. And I don't want to coddle peoples feelings if it makes them overlook some things that should be examined. If the article above doesn't make you think this is serious, then what about stem cells? Or the many people who suffer in a war that no one is really sure what it's for--not just Americans--but all sorts of people who have no say about what their government does. It's ugly. And it's uglier to know the profits made by both Halliburton and the oil industry--especially in light of the facts regarding global warming. It's hard to justify such expenditure when minimum wage has been the same for 9 years, gas prices are up, and Americans want help at home with healthcare and our borders and education. And many of us desparately want to return to our secular roots. I want to believe that my President and those who support this administration really have altruistic good intentions at heart, but it seems so obvious to me that it's their own financial health that is guiding their conviction. So help me understand what it is you find valuable about this party--or is it just fidelity to a group--like religion or being a cubs fan or what? And what would it take to get you to speak out against this party you align yourself with and apologize for so readily? What sort of facts made you choose this party and what sort of facts make people roll their eyes at all other candidates. Why was John Kerry unacceptable or what is so awful about Clinton. Most of the people I know including myself were much better off before Bush took office.

[Buckaroo]

The Republican party is certainly due much criticism at this time considering the over emphasis of BS platforms like gay marriage and I say that as an active registered Republican, but surely you don't think that all Republicans are misguided? That there is something intrinsic to the Republican party that would make membership unreasonable?

No, not all -- if you're filthy rich and white, I think it actually does make a lot of sense to vote republican. But I believe that anyone else who does is voting against their better interests, most likely fooled by the cloak of false morality the party has shrouded itself in. In this sense, I think they're misguided.

[RandFan]

I wish I could believe that...but I am concerned:

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060810_evo_rank.html

Faith does seem to be an impenetrable shield to logic and these pastor Ted super churches are growing...

{snip}Geez. Get it out of your system. I'm here for you. :)

I think your biggest mistake is to assume that the Republicans are dominated by the religious right. They aren't. Like I said, freedom and Democracy are powerful things. The culture war was lost. People want their Will and Grace, L Word, The Sopranos, violent and sexual movies, etc. In short they want freedom. You just can't trump that. I read your post and it was interesting but nothing that would take me beyond concern. And I'm willing to be concerned. I think these @holes can screw up a good thing for awhile. Let's be vigilant. Let's speak out against them.

But trust me on this when I say, they sky ain't falling.

[RandFan]

No, not all -- if you're filthy rich and white, I think it actually does make a lot of sense to vote republican. But I believe that anyone else who does is voting against their better interests, most likely fooled by the cloak of false morality the party has shrouded itself in. In this sense, I think they're misguided.Hey, freedom of speech and opinions are good things. I'm glad you got to share. I think you are bigoted and ignorant but that is just my opinion. :)

[7th sextile]

I'd vote for another Ike, or heck, even another Nixon. Even Bush Sr. was far superior to his son. I hate the fact that if I mention that I loath GWB as worse that Harding and Buchanan put together many people automatically assume that I must be far to the left, just before they ask who Harding and Buchanan are.

Steven

uhhh-Harding's the crazy figure skating chick,Buchanan's the Economic Nationalist Wall Builder.Right?

[RandFan]

I'd like to post what I think is one of the best posts I have ever read on JREF. It encapsulates what I believe JREF stands for and what skepticism and critical thinking are all about. I believe that for otherwise reasonable and skeptical people, aside from religion, politics is the biggest obstacle to reason and rational thought.

With that in mind let me share the post with you.

Not a terribly brilliant insight, but thought I would share anyway...

I write software for a living. It's an intellectually humbling field. I do it well - extremely few bugs reported in my career on delivered software. Of course, I've worked in life-critical areas: aviation and medical, so let's just say my testing regimen is a tad more rigorous than Microsoft's.

Nonetheless, my compiler/debugger tells me about 20 times a day that I got a piece of logic wrong. Formal logic is hard, and we tend to make a lot of mistakes. For the programmers among you, I program extremely defensively, using pre and post condition asserts() on all function parameters, write evaluation routines that check results in debug versions, etc. Yet I make so, so many mistakes.

There's a lesson here. Reasoning is hard, very hard. We need to test our assumptions rigorously, we have to proceed with the assumption that we are wrong, not right, and we have to test even after we are sure we are right. We just have to. Because the human brain and formal logic do not mix.

So I'm bewildered by subforums like politics. We know we can't test our assumptions, or that the test are ambiguous at best. I have a vague idea that I like parts of the Democratic platform - ecological conservation, suspicion about business affairs, tolerance of personal affairs, and parts of the Republican platform, but am I sure? No. Not enough to bust a blood vessel in argument, not enough to even argue. Raising questions is fun, and exploring ideas, but I have no illusions that I have any real understanding of the consequences of a set of policy decisions.

I don't mean to single out politics. The same applies to most forums. Nor do I mean to say "bad posters. Bad!" cause you can find me blithely making declarative statements that should have more uncertaintly in them. I guess I just want to point out that writing software is a great example of how hard logic and reasoning is, because it is so clear when our reasoning is wrong. It's not so clear if I reason incorrectly about, say, the math and economics of false positives in drug tests, although that field is pretty cut and dried (in that it is math, and we can check our work). We don't have a compiler/debugger to check our reasoning, and I assure you, you can read and go over your logic by hand many times, but still be wrong. You can have many eyes look at your logic, and still be wrong.

I think a lot of our social structures recognize this. The US federal government basically hamstrings itself purposefully to make sure we don't make changes too quickly. Yes, to avoid corruption and bullying by one side, but also because we make mistakes.

We function heuristically. Try something out, it doesn't work, and we try another thing. Of course, by then 10 other conditions have changed, only 6 of which we realize have an effect on our decisions. And so we muddle through, somehow. Expecting more than "muddling through" from our elected representatives seems naive to me.(emphasis mine)

[RandFan]

That being said, let's get back to mocking the stupidity of a large segment of Republicans that Randi clearly was targeting in his commentary.

[Buckaroo]

I think you are bigoted and ignorant but that is just my opinion. :)

Wha....? :confused: I see the smiley, so I think you're joking, but if so I'm missing the funny. Where did this come from? I don't think I've said anything that would indicate either of these qualities.

[Buckaroo]

That being said, let's get back to mocking the stupidity of a large segment of Republicans that Randi clearly was targeting in his commentary.

Here, here! I'm all for mocking! :D

[bjb]

Let the mocking begin!

Republican aren't subservient to the religious right at all (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcofsmFXCYE)

Seriously, they aren't! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvu7_1TUHXg)

Religion won't interfere in politics to help the Republicans, either. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9WLX--zyDA)

As for catching Osama...it's irrelevant! (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wgRhpmfQXk)

[RandFan]

Wha....? :confused: I see the smiley, so I think you're joking, but if so I'm missing the funny. Where did this come from? I don't think I've said anything that would indicate either of these qualities.It's just my ego. Never mind, carry on.

[Ladewig]

I think the problem here is that you end up splitting the vote. Scientists and those who believe in a strong separation of church and state are not a united voting block like the religious right. Their votes are divided among several political parties--including Libertarians, the Green Party, Independents, and those who don't care enough to vote--at least that is the case in America. So the lesser of two evils might not even have a chance at being elected. Iconoclasts aren't quite the voting block that those fearing damnation are.



But what if instead of splitting the left wing vote into two parties, we split the right wing into two parties. There are plenty of fundies who think the current Republican party is not religious enough and there are plenty of Republicans who think the party is too beholding to the fundies. What if there were a Republican party and a Christian Right party?

Probably the best would be to split both the Dems and the Repubs into two parties so that there would be four viable parties.

[Buckaroo]

It's just my ego. Never mind, carry on.

No worries, mate!

[Marc L]

Wha....? :confused: I see the smiley, so I think you're joking, but if so I'm missing the funny. Where did this come from? I don't think I've said anything that would indicate either of these qualities.

I think that's the point, hence the smiley. Apparently RandFan is including you in a sweeping generalization, but not seriously.

If you weren't so bigoted and ignorant, you'd have gotten it. (just kidding :) )

Marc

[drkitten]

But what if instead of splitting the left wing vote into two parties, we split the right wing into two parties. There are plenty of fundies who think the current Republican party is not religious enough and there are plenty of Republicans who think the party is too beholding to the fundies. What if there were a Republican party and a Christian Right party?

Probably the best would be to split both the Dems and the Repubs into two parties so that there would be four viable parties.

Wouldn't happen.

In a winner-take-all system like the current US elections, there's really only space for two parties. Two of the four parties would end up whithering and their planks would be absorbed into one of the remaining "major" parties.

Essentially, you'd create chaos for an election or two, and then you'd be back to a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation.

[Almo]

I mean, who looks at Ted Kennedy and thinks, "Yeah, that guy TOTALLY represents me." ??

Me.

[Almo]

I can count on one hand the number of political statements that I consider dumber than "Two is the ideal number of political parties."

Coalition politics sucks ass. I'm for two party.

[bjb]

Me.

Now I get understand! For all these years, Ted Kennedy has been representing Canadians.

[Almo]

I'm not a Canadian. I'm a US citizen living in Montreal. :D

[Ladewig]

Coalition politics sucks ass. I'm for two party.


A few years ago, The Republicans and Democrats in Congress said to each other, "every time you invesitgate one of our folks for ethics violations we go to a lot of expense to go investigate one of your folks for ethics violations. Let's save a lot of time and energy by not holding any more ethics violation inquiries." WTF?

[Marc L]

I'm not a Canadian. I'm a US citizen living in Montreal. :D

Wow. You wouldn't happen to know another US citizen living in Toronto who frequented the web under the alias fantome, would you?

Cause if you did, that would be really really freaky.

Marc

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your list is not without some truth however it more closely resembles left wing propaganda rather than critical assessment of the situation and comparison to past administrations. :( Don't drink the kool aid.It is based on evidence. What Faux news have you been watching?

You manage to throw out a lot of general comments. I can waste another hour citing examples but then so many of the Bush promoters here seem to never bother with any thing other than opinion when claiming to be refuting facts.

Care to present your reasons the list isn't valid? The real news, (turn off Faux, it's damaging your brain cells), is full of examples of cronyism. The scandal sheets from both Parties are waay too long, and that one might be a close call, but this administration certainly looks to be setting a new record. (http://www.ecolivingcenter.com/board/politics/messages/73.html) Abducting people, no charges, no attorney, yes torture, no trials are certainly well documented. This administration even re-classified declassified information and they have spent record amounts on PR firm accounts. Every single Federal Department now has a 'faith based web page', you can easily check that.

So let's hear something more specific than opinion that this list is over stated.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Given the current state of affairs it is certainly reasonable to conclude that many are misguided but then people being what they are it's not hard to find misguided people in any walk of life, ideology, etc.

The Republican party is certainly due much criticism at this time considering the over emphasis of BS platforms like gay marriage and I say that as an active registered Republican, but surely you don't think that all Republicans are misguided? That there is something intrinsic to the Republican party that would make membership unreasonable?No, something extrinsic. It has been taken over by neocons and evangelical extremists using each other to get what they want, power and money.

Is there a reason it doesn't seem to disturb you given the core Republican ideals that seem to have been subverted in the process? Unnecessary government interference in people's lives and record spending: aren't those the opposite of the Republican core values?

[RandFan]

So let's hear something more specific than opinion that this list is over stated.That's ok, I've never found you willing to sincerely consider counter arguments and you always bury anyone under a mountain of verbosity, so what's the point? You are a partisan. That's fine. My only complaint is that you claim to be a skeptic when you are simply a skeptic of the Bush administration. Hell everyone is a skeptic of something. The good news is that I don't think many buy that you are a skeptic as is clearly demonstrated in other threads. You simply preach to the choir. So you get to have your say and make your claims. That's a good thing I think.

RandFan

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's ok, I've never found you willing to sincerely consider counter arguments and you always bury anyone under a mountain of verbosity, so what's the point? You are a partisan. That's fine. My only complaint is that you claim to be a skeptic when you are simply a skeptic of the Bush administration. Hell everyone is a skeptic of something. The good news is that I don't think many buy that you are a skeptic as is clearly demonstrated in other threads. You simply preach to the choir. So you get to have your say and make your claims. That's a good thing I think.

RandFanThis is simply not true.

Your South Park sarcasm post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1946881&postcount=21)

You seconded andy's false statement about me. I'm beginning to think that skeptigirs's skepticism is rather narrowly focused. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1946956&postcount=33)

More ad homs of yours (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1949731&postcount=65)

You replied the following was a "good post" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1947051&postcount=41)
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
One problem with this proposition (in addition to those given above) is that invading "for oil" does not actually specify the reason. Here are a few different alternative reasons to invade a country with oil, all of which fall under "for oil":

1) to gain control of the oil for ourselves
2) to remove control of the oil from Saddam
3) to prevent a third party from gaining control of the oil
4) to gain access to the oil for ourselves
5) to prevent access to the oil for a third party

Now, why might dictatorships with oil keep getting invaded, as you contended?

Well, (1) isn't sufficient, because why not just invade Canada? (3) and (5) aren't generalizable or applicable to Iraq, and (4) has never really been a problem if we didn't WANT to prevent access (sanctions). So that leaves (2) as a pretty good contender. And it makes sense: oil resources make a dictator a lot more dangerous, and they also make such dictators essentially immune to economic (ie, non-military) forms of pressure.

So even assuming that this really IS all about oil, well, that alone tells us much less than is often assumed.

I replied to you and Zig with a page of details (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1949341&postcount=53) which were dismissed with more sarcasm and ad homs.

[bjb]

skeptigirl, for what its worth, your first post in this thread expressed how I feel about the Republican party. I thought it was a pretty straightforward list of the awful, awful things that I used to believe could never happen here. A common strategy used by Republicans (and pretty much anyone who doesn't have a good counter-arguement) is to never directly respond to a challenge and to simply brush it off as far-left (or right) propoganda. I saw in another thread that you didn't feel it was worth arguing with these sorts of people but that you felt some lurkers might learn something from your efforts. I just thought I'd let you know that some of us can see what's going on here.

[Buckaroo]

skeptigirl, for what its worth, your first post in this thread expressed how I feel about the Republican party. I thought it was a pretty straightforward list of the awful, awful things that I used to believe could never happen here. A common strategy used by Republicans (and pretty much anyone who doesn't have a good counter-arguement) is to never directly respond to a challenge and to simply brush it off as far-left (or right) propoganda. I saw in another thread that you didn't feel it was worth arguing with these sorts of people but that you felt some lurkers might learn something from your efforts. I just thought I'd let you know that some of us can see what's going on here.

What he said.

[RandFan]

That's ok, I've never found you willing to sincerely consider counter arguments and you always bury anyone under a mountain of verbosity, so what's the point? You are a partisan. That's fine. My only complaint is that you claim to be a skeptic when you are simply a skeptic of the Bush administration. Hell everyone is a skeptic of something. The good news is that I don't think many buy that you are a skeptic as is clearly demonstrated in other threads. You simply preach to the choir. So you get to have your say and make your claims. That's a good thing I think.

RandFan

This is simply not true. This thread was started with the sincere desire to poke fun at Republicans. I admit that I had a hand in derailing it and I regret that. However I stand by my statement to you.

Now, if you want to debate this then please take it to the other thread. If you want to mock Republicans then this is a good place to do it and I promise you that I won't respond or rebut your efforts in so mocking. *Ed knows that they need serious mocking at the moment.

Fair enough?

*For those that don't know Ed was god here at JREF.

[Solitaire]

"There is only one war, and it's not the rich against the poor, the blacks against the whites, the Federation against the Borg, or the Democrats versus the Republicans. It's those of us who aren't complete idiots against those of us who are."

Too late. They're here. (http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/238.html)

KING: Well, I'm involved in a— in—. You asked, and I gotta disclose. There's a group that's been generated just in the last few months called Unity '08. And the whole idea is very straightforward. We wanna have an online convention, a national convention, if you will, open to any American voter to choose a unity ticket for president and vice-president in 2008. That is a Republican and a Democrat or a Democrat and a Republican.

:eye-poppi

[Phrost]

You know, I'd always wondered what Randi's political leanings were.

I'm with you RandFan, I voted for Bush in 04 in a 'lesser of two weasels' scenario, mainly because the Libertarian Party just isn't viable (or sane on national security).

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I...like most Americans don't vote. I don't vote because none of the politicians running for any office meet the criteria or hold the viewpoints that I would actually vote for.

[Piggy]

I'm an independent, I vote.

During the Bush regime, I have been utterly disgusted at the turn the Republican party has taken. They've out-Gingriched Gingrich, out-Atwatered Atwater.

Rove and Addington are thugs in suits. Bush is a liar, a butcher, and a fool. It turns my stomach (seriously) every time I hear him speak and am reminded that he is president of my country.

Yet I thought Randi's comments were out of line.

He's free to express his opinion, but that was not the place.

[RandFan]

You know, I'd always wondered what Randi's political leanings were.

I'm with you RandFan, I voted for Bush in 04 in a 'lesser of two weasels' scenario, mainly because the Libertarian Party just isn't viable (or sane on national security).I think he has intentionally kept his ideology close to the vest. I don't think he is a liberal because of something that he said in 2001 (2?) where he was commemorating a prominent skeptic who passed on and he said "but he was a liberal" IIRC. It was discussed at the time.

I've corresponded with him a short while (3 emails) and I know he has a real problem with the religious right. Can't say I blame him. I think, that he believes the Republican party is giving up too much and giving in too often to the religious right.

Shermer and Penn & Teller, some of his closest friends are libertarian I suppose his sympathies lie in that direction.

Caveat, this is pure speculation on my part.

[Ladewig]

mainly because the Libertarian Party just isn't viable (or sane on national security).

I thought Libertarians were strong on national security. What is their position?

ETA: I went to their site ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml ) to get more information and found this:

Repeal all legislation that transfers property rights to the state, including those enacted in the name of aesthetic values, risk, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, the promotion or restriction of economic growth, health or national security claims.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security.

So we need to screen entrants for national security threats, but there will be no agency to cover national security issues.

I see you point, Phrost.

[Marc L]

Bush is a liar, a butcher, and a fool.

Ok, I'm obviously way out of the loop, here. Just how is Bush a butcher?

Note, I'm not arguing with the other two characterizations.

Marc

[bjb]

Some people point to the civilian deaths in Iraq and say it proves Bush is a butcher. There have been some rather awful incidents where large amounts of civilians have been accidentally killed by US airstrikes.

Personally, I see these events as typical of warfare. I've read many, many books on wars throughout history and this is how it goes. Maybe I'm a butcher, too. But then, so is FDR, JFK, Lincoln, and every other president who was in office during wartime.

[Buckaroo]

Some people point to the civilian deaths in Iraq and say it proves Bush is a butcher. There have been some rather awful incidents where large amounts of civilians have been accidentally killed by US airstrikes.

Personally, I see these events as typical of warfare. I've read many, many books on wars throughout history and this is how it goes. Maybe I'm a butcher, too. But then, so is FDR, JFK, Lincoln, and every other president who was in office during wartime.

I would go even farther back, and point to his record as guv'nor of Texas, where he gleefully presided over a bloodthirsty capital punishment system (even by US standards) in which it is unquestionable that numerous innocent people were put to death.

[bjb]

I lived in Texas for a while, before Bush was governor. The citizens of Texas, who voted for George Bush, did not complain very much about their death penalty system. Now I live in California, and if anything, we Californians would like to see more death penalties carried out. When the people don't want the death penalty, the politicans will change the law and the death penalty will go away.

Years ago, we had Pat Brown as governor. He was anti-death penalty but he still allowed executions to take place. He had to go by the law and even though he didn't like it, he had no other choice but to carry out the legal executions. Pat Brown and George Bush ordered executions, but only George Bush is a butcher? Or are both of them butchers? Or did they both simply follow the law?

As for executing innocent people, I think you're confusing Texas with Illinois (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/).

[Buckaroo]

I lived in Texas for a while, before Bush was governor. The citizens of Texas, who voted for George Bush, did not complain very much about their death penalty system. Now I live in California, and if anything, we Californians would like to see more death penalties carried out. When the people don't want the death penalty, the politicans will change the law and the death penalty will go away.

Years ago, we had Pat Brown as governor. He was anti-death penalty but he still allowed executions to take place. He had to go by the law and even though he didn't like it, he had no other choice but to carry out the legal executions. Pat Brown and George Bush ordered executions, but only George Bush is a butcher? Or are both of them butchers? Or did they both simply follow the law?

As for executing innocent people, I think you're confusing Texas with Illinois (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/).

It's probably bad form to hijack Randfan's thread, and there's a lot to talk about here, so maybe we shouldn't start. :) Another thread, perhaps?

[Piggy]

Just how is Bush a butcher?
Let's see.... Unjustified pre-emptive war.... Incompetence in managing that war.... Refusal to correct mistakes which contribute to continued casualties.... Condoning torture.... Refusing to grant habeas corpus to people caught in blanket sweeps or turned in by bounty hunters.... Just the usual stuff, you know....

[Geek Goddess]

I would go even farther back, and point to his record as guv'nor of Texas, where he gleefully presided over a bloodthirsty capital punishment system (even by US standards) in which it is unquestionable that numerous innocent people were put to death.

Proof that he was 'gleeful', please?

Actually, the court system and the juries voted the death penalties in every case. Since an average death-row inmate spends years, if not decades, on the appeal process, Bush wasn't governor when the sentences were pronounced.

He declined in most cases to overturn the original court, appeal court, supreme court, and jury decisions. He did not choose or dictate the punishment. That included the death sentence for some of those involved in the shameful dragging death of a black man in Jasper years ago. Capital punishments are continuing under the present, Democratic governor.

[Buckaroo]

Proof that he was 'gleeful', please?


From Tucker Carlson:
Bush's brand of forthright `tough-guy` populism can be appealing, and it has played well in Texas. Yet occasionally there are flashes of meanness visible beneath it.

While driving back from the speech later that day, Bush mentions Karla Faye Tucker, a double murderer who was executed in Texas last year. In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. 'Did you meet with any of them?' I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. 'No, I didn't meet with any of them,' he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. 'I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' 'What was her answer?' I wonder.

'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'

I must look shocked -- ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel, even for someone as militantly anticrime as Bush -- because he immediately stops smirking.

'It's tough stuff,' Bush says, suddenly somber, 'but my job is to enforce the law.' As it turns out, the Larry `King-Karla` Faye Tucker exchange Bush recounted never took place, at least not on television. During her interview with King, however, Tucker did imply that Bush was succumbing to `election-year` pressure from `pro-death` penalty voters. Apparently Bush never forgot it. He has a long memory for slights.
-Talk Magazine, September 1999, p. 106.

Also:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm -- an opinion piece, but danged persuasive.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/02/04/texas/index.html

Maybe we should start another thread.

[RandFan]

From Tucker Carlson:

-Talk Magazine, September 1999, p. 106.

Also:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm -- an opinion piece, but danged persuasive.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/02/04/texas/index.html

Maybe we should start another thread. This one's doing fine. Let it go.

[Buckaroo]

This one's doing fine. Let it go.

Cool! Didn't want to step on your toes, RandFan.

I lived in Texas for a while, before Bush was governor. The citizens of Texas, who voted for George Bush, did not complain very much about their death penalty system. Now I live in California, and if anything, we Californians would like to see more death penalties carried out. When the people don't want the death penalty, the politicans will change the law and the death penalty will go away.

At various times in history, "the people" wanted slavery and Apartheid. Does that make it right? The tyranny of the majority is a very real concern.

I should fess up here and state that I am not against the death penalty in principle. I have a very strong sense of "eye for an eye" flavored justice, and I do believe that some acts forfeit one's right to exist. The problem is that even an ideal society, there is no way to determine with certainty who is actually deserving of this forfeiture, and in our far-less-than-ideal justice system, subject to politics, prejudice, and just plain lousy judgement, to continue to execute people who are quite possibly innocent is barbaric. It simply can't be argued that innocent persons have not been put to death.

Years ago, we had Pat Brown as governor. He was anti-death penalty but he still allowed executions to take place. He had to go by the law and even though he didn't like it, he had no other choice but to carry out the legal executions. Pat Brown and George Bush ordered executions, but only George Bush is a butcher? Or are both of them butchers? Or did they both simply follow the law?
Sounds like Brown approached execution in an appropriate manner, soberly and with regret. That was the law, and he followed it. My beef with Bush is that, as shown in the Tucker Carlson piece, he seemed to enjoy denying Carla Faye Tucker clemency and presiding over her death. Tucker Carlson is far from a knee-jerk liberal, and I tend to trust his reportage here.

As for executing innocent people, I think you're confusing Texas with Illinois (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/).

Yep, I know about Illinois. Are you claiming here that unlike Illinois, Texas never put to death an innocent person?

I'm with Gandalf here (who I'll quote in a RARE display of geekiness:) ):
"Many who live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

[RandFan]

Cool! Didn't want to step on your toes, RandFan. Thanks I really appreciate that.

At various times in history, "the people" wanted slavery and Apartheid. Does that make it right? The tyranny of the majority is a very real concern. Agreed, which is why we are a representative Democracy and have given power to the judicial to protect the rights of the minority. I'm not debating you just agreeing.

In the spirit of Tu Quoque, Clinton also had to deal with a controversial death penalty case when he was Governor of Arkansas. He put to death a man who, at his last meal, decided to save his pie for later. That's not a joke. The man had the mental faculties of a child (IIRC).

I do realize that this does not excuse anything Bush did wrong but where would a Bush thread be without bringing up Clinton? ;)

[Geek Goddess]

From Tucker Carlson:

-Talk Magazine, September 1999, p. 106.

Also:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm -- an opinion piece, but danged persuasive.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/02/04/texas/index.html

Maybe we should start another thread.

"In mock desperation" sounds like an editorial comment to me. Karla Faye Tucker killed one person with an axe, tried to kill another, but when her arms got tired she had her boyfriend finish off the second person. She bragged about the carnage in such 'glee' and detail to her sister, that her sister turned her in. Later, she was caught on wire claiming that she had multiple orgasms while committing the murder, which was undoubtedly bragging that helped convince the jury that she was a sicko. (I heard the tape, she sounded proud of herself).

She found religion and became 'born again' in prison, and felt that in light of her conversion, her sentence should be commuted to life imprisionment, and held all sorts of press conferences stating that the death penalty was wrong. She did ask not to be killed, and sounded very sweet and sorrowful, in great contrast to the loser who took pride in murdering someone she didn't like.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Coalition politics sucks ass. I'm for two party.

Fine, just don't get on your high horse and complain about the "apathy" of non-voters who don't think that the "choice" between wanna-be fascists (i.e. the Repbulicans) and wanna-be socialists (i.e. the Democrats) is really a choice at all.

[Buckaroo]

I do realize that this does not excuse anything Bush did wrong but where would a Bush thread be without bringing up Clinton? ;)

Hee, hee! :D Yeah, Clinton had his moments, too. But DAMN he played a mean sax. (Well, for about 3 minutes, anyway. And wait, now that I think about it -- well, he wasn't that good, was he?)

[Buckaroo]

"In mock desperation" sounds like an editorial comment to me. Karla Faye Tucker killed one person with an axe, tried to kill another, but when her arms got tired she had her boyfriend finish off the second person. She bragged about the carnage in such 'glee' and detail to her sister, that her sister turned her in. Later, she was caught on wire claiming that she had multiple orgasms while committing the murder, which was undoubtedly bragging that helped convince the jury that she was a sicko. (I heard the tape, she sounded proud of herself).

She found religion and became 'born again' in prison, and felt that in light of her conversion, her sentence should be commuted to life imprisionment, and held all sorts of press conferences stating that the death penalty was wrong. She did ask not to be killed, and sounded very sweet and sorrowful, in great contrast to the loser who took pride in murdering someone she didn't like.

You'll not hear me defending her. In my opinion, she deserved death. But Bush's attitude was inexcusable, and is consistent with the picture of him that has built up over the years -- a callous, thuggish, mean-spirited bully, possibly sociopathic.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

I'm pretty smart, if you judge by various factors such as job, degree, performance, IQ, and ability to converse with words of more than two syllables. I tend to vote Republican because the alternative is usually worse. Religion aside, I am just betting most believers of woo-woo and New Age crapola are not Republicans...

Yes, that is the albatros that hangs around our liberal neck. Liberalism and woo woo seem to go hand in hand. I can't tell you how many times I've had a wonderful, cathartic religious bashing diatribe with someone in a coffee shop only at the end have them invite me to their "Drum circle" or "fire ring."

To be fair, Republicans have their own share of woo woo - least of all that whole Christ risen from the dead thing. I like to think of it as Old School New Age. Plus the typical Republican "faith" in the capitalist market system often borders on the delusional. Take Larry Kudlow, for instance, the guy actually believes the market is an organic being.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

"In mock desperation" sounds like an editorial comment to me. Karla Faye Tucker killed one person with an axe, tried to kill another, but when her arms got tired she had her boyfriend finish off the second person. She bragged about the carnage in such 'glee' and detail to her sister, that her sister turned her in. Later, she was caught on wire claiming that she had multiple orgasms while committing the murder, which was undoubtedly bragging that helped convince the jury that she was a sicko. (I heard the tape, she sounded proud of herself).

She found religion and became 'born again' in prison, and felt that in light of her conversion, her sentence should be commuted to life imprisionment, and held all sorts of press conferences stating that the death penalty was wrong. She did ask not to be killed, and sounded very sweet and sorrowful, in great contrast to the loser who took pride in murdering someone she didn't like.

I think the bigger question is, actually, does a democratic society that promises life as one of its inalienable liberties have the right to deprive its citizens, against their will, of that right. This goes to the heart of our social contract - from the death penality to enforced conscription (e.g. drafting) to imminent domain. Employing the principle that life in prison without parole creates the same social situation as the death penalty (the offender is forever removed from society) then it seems more correct to me to employ the punishment that does not play up innate hypocrisies in our system.

Further, I am an atheist so I don't have a belief in eternal hell (nor do a lot of non-Christian religions.) Thus, life imprisonment actually seems like the worse punishment to me. Given the choice of fifty years to mull my crimes in a tiny cell versus diving under a bus, I would choose the latter.

[PBTree]

been reading all of the posts and have a question.

In my wonderous land we have two main parties, Labour and Liberal. Labour was started to assist the working class (a tinge of red) and Liberal was always for the middle to upper class. Whilst this may not be how it is today, it is generally considered the difference between the two parties. How do they compare with Democrats and Republicans. Where/what is the difference in your two parties?

[Piggy]

Where/what is the difference in your two parties?
You really can't apply that kind of thinking to the US system. Here, it's all about critical mass, all about constituency.

The actual policy differences between Dems and Reps are relatively trivial, when you get right down to what they're willing to do.

Because a national party has to appeal to such a huge number of geographically dispersed people, strange bedfellows are a requirement.

Consider Republicans, "the party of Lincoln", who now attract single-digit percentages of the black vote in most places, while the formerly segregationalist Democrats largely take the black vote for granted.

Democrats used to control the "solid South" merely because of hatred of Republicans who were associated with Lincoln and the carpetbaggers. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, the tide bagan to turn. Now the South is solidly "red", even though the Republican party acts against the economic interests of the vast majority of Southern voters.

Bush is a populist conservative hero, even though he has acted against just about every conservative value in the book, favoring high deficits, increased government payrolls, government intrusion into private lives of citizens, foreign entanglements, Constitutional amendments, curtailing personal liberties, and the like.

The conservative "base" votes for him because he favors Christianizing the government, and effectively portrays the Democrats as "liberal" nut jobs who want to secularize the entire world. And he gets the power vote because he's helping to make the rich much richer.

But the Dems are hardly the shining knights of the working class.

The thing is, the landscape shifts. It's all about getting the biggest piece of the pie. There are no core values.

[BrianSI]

I'm going to write in Piggy for president next time.

(Maybe I should know his real name first.)

[Piggy]

I'm going to write in Piggy for president next time.
I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my... uh... constituent... for a term as your president.

[PBTree]

You really can't apply that kind of thinking to the US system. Here, it's all about critical mass, all about constituency.

The actual policy differences between Dems and Reps are relatively trivial, when you get right down to what they're willing to do.

Because a national party has to appeal to such a huge number of geographically dispersed people, strange bedfellows are a requirement.

Consider Republicans, "the party of Lincoln", who now attract single-digit percentages of the black vote in most places, while the formerly segregationalist Democrats largely take the black vote for granted.

Democrats used to control the "solid South" merely because of hatred of Republicans who were associated with Lincoln and the carpetbaggers. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, the tide bagan to turn. Now the South is solidly "red", even though the Republican party acts against the economic interests of the vast majority of Southern voters.

Bush is a populist conservative hero, even though he has acted against just about every conservative value in the book, favoring high deficits, increased government payrolls, government intrusion into private lives of citizens, foreign entanglements, Constitutional amendments, curtailing personal liberties, and the like.

The conservative "base" votes for him because he favors Christianizing the government, and effectively portrays the Democrats as "liberal" nut jobs who want to secularize the entire world. And he gets the power vote because he's helping to make the rich much richer.

But the Dems are hardly the shining knights of the working class.

The thing is, the landscape shifts. It's all about getting the biggest piece of the pie. There are no core values.



Am I right in thinking that your government is more along the lines of the old Roman senate. Lots of independent senators who band together at some points (rep and dem) for common or self interests?

Does the fact that their differences are trivial defeat the purpose of this thread, that tries to show the republicans as "dumb as dog s..t"? I mean, they are all fairly much the same aren't they.

re: the 3rd party mentioned in an earlier post. Not to sure how another party would fit into this system. What could they portray themselves as, that would be any different to the bunch that are already there?

Curiouser and curiouser!

[BrianSI]

I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my... uh... constituent... for a term as your president.

Didn't Jesus say something similar?

[Piggy]

Am I right in thinking that your government is more along the lines of the old Roman senate. Lots of independent senators who band together at some points (rep and dem) for common or self interests?
No. The parties are the basis of power. Very few switcheroos, the exceptions are notable, and they usually happen because of a power shift within a state.

Does the fact that their differences are trivial defeat the purpose of this thread, that tries to show the republicans as "dumb as dog s..t"? I mean, they are all fairly much the same aren't they.
The differences are trivial when you consider what the parties are willing to do. But what they're willing to do at any given moment shifts with time.

Because they have to divide the voting population, they are continually carving and recarving their turf. When one zigs, the other must zag or get caught short.

Right now, the Republicans are dominant because they have better marketing. More specifically, they have developed an organizational mechanism by which "talking points" are physically (and electronically) distributed among party members and media shills. Everyone is "on message". It's highly top-down.

The goal of the Republicans is to maintain dominance. In order to do so, they must (a) appease the "base", (b) satisfy the power blocks, and (c) smear the opposition.

Unfortunately, they have an administration run by a small junta of very short-sided men who know how to win elections and run marketing campaigns, but practically nothing about governing a nation. And now, their almost mind-bogglingly stupid policies are catching up with them.

But this does not mean that the Dems will do any better if/when they get power, or that the Reps wouldn't do better if they managed to elect sane leadership.

So although the Republican executive is truly scary, there are now sane Republicans with many years experience who are willing to stand up and call BS on all this.

Arlen Specter is a good example. When Bush was re-elected, he made a calm and rational appeal for the president to please not send judicial nominees to the Senate who would be so controversial as to be unapprovable and merely constitute a waste of their time and a distraction from important business. He was called onto the carpet, and I don't know what Rove and Douglass threatened him with, but he came out of the meeting with a public statement that he would approve anyone the president sent over.

Then he got cancer and changed his perspective about what is truly important in life, and has been on the right track ever since.

On the other hand, there are true fools like my representative, Lynn Westmoreland, and truly immoral men like my senator, Saxby Chambliss, who want to turn Congress into a rubber-stamp politburo.

So yes, the Reps, as a party, and the executive in particular, are doing some horrendous things and attempting to drive truly dangerous legislation. But that's just because of the whims of the leadership and a desire to cement power. It has nothing to do with any underlying and enduring differences in party ideology.


re: the 3rd party mentioned in an earlier post. Not to sure how another party would fit into this system. What could they portray themselves as, that would be any different to the bunch that are already there?
Well, here's the catch 22. When a 3rd party shows enough mass to identify a significant voting bloc, one or the other of the main parties adopts their platorm in order to secure their votes. It's happened again and again through our history.

[Piggy]

Didn't Jesus say something similar?
Jesus... Johnson... what's the difference?

Johnson certainly didn't seem to see any.

[RandFan]

Right now, the Republicans are dominant because they have better marketing. More specifically, they have developed an organizational mechanism by which "talking points" are physically (and electronically) distributed among party members and media shills. Everyone is "on message". It's highly top-down.Excellent posts Piggy. I don't have much to argue. However I have to say that this organizational mechanism goes way back when the Democrats were in power under Clinton. Rush Limbaugh would regularly put together a montage of Democrat Pundits from talk radio, network news and cable talk shows spouting talking points and they would be near word-for-word and it would go on for 10 or more pundits. This was back before the Republican take over of Congress under Clinton. I don't doubt the Repub's were doing the same but Limbaugh didn't want to make that point. ;)

A dynamic of 50 states and 100,000,000 voters really can't be boiled down to one or two simple variables. The soccer mom crap is interesting to a point especially as it relates to swing voters but it really is far more complex than that.

[Piggy]

I have to say that this organizational mechanism goes way back when the Democrats were in power under Clinton.
Right. It's a matter of degree. When Murdock came into the fold, the system under the direction of Rove -- who learned at the lotus feet of Atwater, and went on to surpass the master -- simply outclasses what the Dems had developed.

[Darth Rotor]

I'd vote for another Ike, or heck, even another Nixon. Even Bush Sr. was far superior to his son. I hate the fact that if I mention that I loath GWB as worse that Harding and Buchanan put together many people automatically assume that I must be far to the left, just before they ask who Harding and Buchanan are.

Steven
They all know who Pat Buchanan is, no doubt, but Harding is probably to them a skater named Tanya, which makes the comparison confusing. :)

Mention Teapot Dome and see what their eyes do.

Curiously, GW Bush makes Pat Buchanan look attractive to a conservative as a presidential candidate, which strikes me as a strange turn of events, or a sense of desperation. I think he's burned his Repubilcan bridges, so he's a third party, or nothing, player in 2008.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Some people point to the civilian deaths in Iraq and say it proves Bush is a butcher. There have been some rather awful incidents where large amounts of civilians have been accidentally killed by US airstrikes.

Personally, I see these events as typical of warfare. I've read many, many books on wars throughout history and this is how it goes. Maybe I'm a butcher, too. But then, so is FDR, JFK, Lincoln, and every other president who was in office during wartime.
Got an example? I am curious.

DR

[Geek Goddess]

The conservative "base" votes for him because he favors Christianizing the government, and effectively portrays the Democrats as "liberal" nut jobs who want to secularize the entire world. And he gets the power vote because he's helping to make the rich much richer.

.

As a fairly conservative non-Christian (non-religious) person, who has a fair number of people in common with me, I'd say this is not correct. There may be a lot of Christians who vote for him 'just because' he's a purported Christian. Christians tend to be conservative, but that's not universal.

Again, as a non-Christian, I don't see him as trying to "Christianize the government" anymore than I saw previous administrations trying to 'secularize' the government, I see them bringing their own values and views into their job. Believe me, a viewpoint of the Clinton administration by a lot of people was that it lacked morals and frequently abused its power as a state (Whitewater, Lewinsky, Ruby Ridge and Waco and Gonzales)

I recommend Dr Thomas Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions" as an excellent work on how the two different world views can't talk to each other because they don't use the same olanguage. "I believe this way, and if you don't you have a different viewpoint or are misinformed" vs "I believe this way, and if you don't you are evil, hate the poor, want to destroy the environment"

[Darth Rotor]

There may be a lot of Christians who vote for him 'just because' he's a purported Christian. Christians tend to be conservative, but that's not universal.
There are plenty of liberal Christians who are not pleased with the strong arm tactics of the religious right, whose influence in the mid 80's was enough to preclude me from ever registering as a Republican. (Note: I was never a liberal Christian, but I have met loads of them over time.)
Again, as a non-Christian, I don't see him as trying to "Christianize the government" anymore than I saw previous administrations trying to 'secularize' the government.
The "secularization" you refer to seems to me a movement that can be clearly traced to US participation in WW I. "Once they've seen Paris, how ya gonna keep them on the farm?" With the importation of the new and radical socialist ideas from Europe, along with the Enlightenment strains already present in the founding principles. it seems to have been a natural course for things to take.

Believe me, a viewpoint of the Clinton administration by a lot of people was that it lacked morals and frequently abused its power as a state (Whitewater, Lewinsky, Ruby Ridge and Waco and Gonzales)
Violation of the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 by using Active Duty personnel from Fort Hood (as well as Texas National Guard) for the Waco mess wasn't successfully brought to court. This omission strikes me as curious bit of myopia on the part of the ACLU, whose apathy in that case lends credence to a new nickname, the Anti Christian Lawyers Union. :p Even ATF agents in their articles point to the fraudulent "it's crank lab, it's a War on Drugs matter" nonsense.

[qipote]"I believe this way, and if you don't you have a different viewpoint or are misinformed" vs "I believe this way, and if you don't you are evil, hate the poor, want to destroy the environment"[/QUOTE]
As true for Moore as for Limbaugh, two closed minded fat men.

DR

[Piggy]

As a fairly conservative non-Christian (non-religious) person, who has a fair number of people in common with me, I'd say this is not correct.
Actually, you're right. I stand corrected. I should have qualified my use of "base" further.

Again, as a non-Christian, I don't see him as trying to "Christianize the government"
Here, I have to disagree with you. He clearly is.


anymore than I saw previous administrations trying to 'secularize' the government, I see them bringing their own values and views into their job.
The government is rightly secular, per the Constitution, so of course there's no need to secularize it. And yes, everyone brings their own values, but there's a difference between that and deliberately trying to blur the line between church and state. In any case, that's a different thread, perhaps?

Believe me, a viewpoint of the Clinton administration by a lot of people was that it lacked morals and frequently abused its power as a state (Whitewater, Lewinsky, Ruby Ridge and Waco and Gonzales)
That may be a viewpoint, but Whitewater was trumped-up nonsense, and Elian had to be returned. Lewinsky was a pecadillo. Ruby Ridge, imo, was a legitimate screw-up.

[Piggy]

Ruby Ridge, imo, was a legitimate screw-up.
Clarification -- by which I mean, a serious issue, a legitimate issue... not justified. (I just realized that "legitimate screw-up" could be interpreted as meaning "honest mistake", which is not what I mean.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

What [bjb] said.
Thank you both.

I am having a hard time with the bombardment of ad homs from a minority of members. I really want to address actual issues. There are many points of view and we can all learn from those points whether they contain something new or whether they help one fine tune their own points when challenged.

But when people throw naive insults around I guess to make themselves feel better, it just clutters the thread.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some people point to the civilian deaths in Iraq and say it proves Bush is a butcher. There have been some rather awful incidents where large amounts of civilians have been accidentally killed by US airstrikes.

Personally, I see these events as typical of warfare. I've read many, many books on wars throughout history and this is how it goes. Maybe I'm a butcher, too. But then, so is FDR, JFK, Lincoln, and every other president who was in office during wartime.
According to Hersh in the New Yorker article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact), Bush wanted Israel to drop massive bombs on Lebanon with the belief the Lebanese would blame Hezbolah for bringing on the devastation. The article is credible.

Bush seems to think brute force at any cost is OK as evidenced in our actions in Iraq. He speaks of the deaths of a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians as collateral damage. Even if one were to believe the war in Iraq had anything to do with the desire of the US to prevent more attacks like that on 9/11, the deaths of Iraqis are no less tragic than the deaths of people here on 9/11. Clearly in the mind of Bush and many others, those Iraqi deaths are close to meaningless.

He didn't spend more than a few minutes reviewing any of the death penalty cases (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/06/12/death/) as governor of Texas.

I for one, think these are examples of a pattern of utter disregard for the life of people Bush considers "them" and not "us".

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
As for executing innocent people, I think you're confusing Texas with Illinois (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/).I believe the Illinois governor recognized that since the Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/) was finding a large % of the cases they looked at were wrongful convictions, then out of 100 executions you would definitely have at least some innocent people. And when I first looked at this I assumed the Innocence Project examples were a selected sample but there was actually other studies that put the estimate of wrongful convictions on serious felonies and death penalty cases over 25%, IIRC.

What the Illinois governor rightfully concluded was that until the justice system was corrected it was inevitable innocent people had been and would be executed. It is close to 100% probable based on statistics that Bush allowed more than one innocent person to be executed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Proof that he was 'gleeful', please?

Actually, the court system and the juries voted the death penalties in every case. Since an average death-row inmate spends years, if not decades, on the appeal process, Bush wasn't governor when the sentences were pronounced.

He declined in most cases to overturn the original court, appeal court, supreme court, and jury decisions. He did not choose or dictate the punishment. That included the death sentence for some of those involved in the shameful dragging death of a black man in Jasper years ago. Capital punishments are continuing under the present, Democratic governor.I believe Bush was recorded making sarcastic jokes about Karla Fae Tucker's appeals for reprieve.

And the claim Bush had no authority to actually stop a death was refuted in the Salon article I linked to. Bush merely needed to call a member of the board who did have authority, and in fact Bush did in a single case. The board members said Bush never contacted them on any other case.

There are always going to be cases that one has less arguments against carrying out the death sentence. Read a few of the cases of those wrongfully convicted before assuming every case is as bad as the worst cases or as certain as the most obvious.

Well, I read on and see others already posted all this. Good work!

[Skeptic Ginger]

As a fairly conservative non-Christian (non-religious) person, who has a fair number of people in common with me, I'd say this is not correct. There may be a lot of Christians who vote for him 'just because' he's a purported Christian. Christians tend to be conservative, but that's not universal.

Again, as a non-Christian, I don't see him as trying to "Christianize the government" anymore than I saw previous administrations trying to 'secularize' the government, I see them bringing their own values and views into their job. Believe me, a viewpoint of the Clinton administration by a lot of people was that it lacked morals and frequently abused its power as a state (Whitewater, Lewinsky, Ruby Ridge and Waco and Gonzales)

I recommend Dr Thomas Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions" as an excellent work on how the two different world views can't talk to each other because they don't use the same olanguage. "I believe this way, and if you don't you have a different viewpoint or are misinformed" vs "I believe this way, and if you don't you are evil, hate the poor, want to destroy the environment"I recommend you take a look at the actions of the well funded, well organized Evangelical groups that began to grow in the Reagan years and have been working to change the US into a "Christian" nation. They have been promoting federal court appointments like Judge Moore of the "Ten Commandments in my courtroom" to school board members like the Dover school board wanting to add Bible teaching to science classes. These guys have shoved abstinence only education and HIV prevention programs down the throats of not just the US but the world as well. They are receiving millions in tax dollars for "faith based" programs which amount to rewards for getting your congregation to vote Republican. The extremists among them visit the White House often.

If you are interested I'll find you some sources but a quick Google search will turn up a wealth of information just as easily.

I will look at your source as well.

[RandFan]

Thank you both.

I am having a hard time with the bombardment of ad homs from a minority of members. I really want to address actual issues. There are many points of view and we can all learn from those points whether they contain something new or whether they help one fine tune their own points when challenged.

But when people throw naive insults around I guess to make themselves feel better, it just clutters the thread.Here's an idea. Stop cutting and pasting pages and pages of text. Instead pick a subject and make an argument consisting of connected premises that establish your point. When folks make counter arguments to your argument then address the counter arguments. DON'T CUT AND PASTE MORE TEXT as your counter argument. What many of us (if not most of us) want from forum participants is for them to tell us what they (the person making the argument) thinks. Not Air America or Rush Limbaugh. Let us see that you understand the issues and are not just regurgitating talking points.

Please note that a number of the people who have taken issue with you SERIOUSLY DON'T LIKE BUSH! That should be a red flag.

[RandFan]

What the Illinois governor rightfully concluded was that until the justice system was corrected it was inevitable innocent people had been and would be executed. I don't understand. I thought that Ryan was a Republican?

[RandFan]

Clearly in the mind of Bush and many others, those Iraqi deaths are close to meaningless.?

Hardly, Bush knew that Saddam was a dictator that was happy to let his people starve to death while he used oil for food money to build palaces. It's clear that Bush believed that He would win in Iraq and free the Iraqis.

You are just spouting rhetoric now. It's clear that you wish to paint Bush as a monster. It isn't convincing when you make such leaps.

[PBTree]

Another question from Oz.

Would it be possible for you to have a prez who isn't a believer? Does your consitution go so far as to allow "freedom of/from religion".

Could we ever see the day when a prez gets up there and swears the oath of office and declares "my word of honour" instead of the other nonsense, at the end?

Don't think it would ever happen here but I've been wrong before.

[RandFan]

Another question from Oz.

Would it be possible for you to have a prez who isn't a believer? Does your consitution go so far as to allow "freedom of/from religion".

Could we ever see the day when a prez gets up there and swears the oath of office and declares "my word of honour" instead of the other nonsense, at the end?

Don't think it would ever happen here but I've been wrong before. I honestly don't think it is possible right now. I think Atheists make poor politicians. They seek what is right and not what is expedient. They don't pick their fights. They are not politically organized and don't think about public relations. And perhaps they shouldn't but trying to take In God We Trust off of the money and god out of the pledge, while morally correct mostly serve to galvanize the very organized and politically astute evangelicals who use such efforts to wrongly paint such efforts as an attempt to take god away from the religious. It's become good god believers against godless evil doers. It's BS but effective. And BTW it goes back to the removal of prayer from schools.

This is one of those can't win for losing dynamics. I think religion is losing ground in many areas. The culture war was won and the religious right lost. Big time. They know it and they are striking back. There is a backlash right now but I predict it will fail. Freedom has been chipping away at religion for a long time. There are a lot of reasons why people don't want to go to church. It's easier now than it ever was before to drop out and now that there is the Internet it's getting even easier to find out the BS in religion.

[bjb]

I believe the Illinois governor recognized that since the Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/) was finding a large % of the cases they looked at were wrongful convictions, then out of 100 executions you would definitely have at least some innocent people. And when I first looked at this I assumed the Innocence Project examples were a selected sample but there was actually other studies that put the estimate of wrongful convictions on serious felonies and death penalty cases over 25%, IIRC.

What the Illinois governor rightfully concluded was that until the justice system was corrected it was inevitable innocent people had been and would be executed. It is close to 100% probable based on statistics that Bush allowed more than one innocent person to be executed.

I wish I could keep up with this thread. A few years ago, I read through the infamous 'last meal' web page that the Texas prison system maintains. It also contains the last statement from each prisoner that has been executed. I read through all of the statements because I was curious to see how many prisoners might have been innocent. All but one or two admitted they were guilty. Most expressed regret except for a couple who pretty much said they were glad they killed their victims. I don't remember all of the details but my impression of the 'innocent' prisoners was that there was quite a lot of physical evidence that linked them to the crime. As I was reading, I noticed that the page was written to make the accused look as bad as possible so it's not exactly an unbiased source.

Anyway, this is how I got my mostly favorable impression of the Texas system. Almost all of the executed prisoners admitted they were guilty and the few that didn't had very strong cases against them. I have to point out that the Innocence Project hasn't had the same success in the state of Texas so my conclusion is that Texas does not have the same problems as Illinois.

Here's a link to the Texas Execution Information Center (http://www.txexecutions.org/default.asp). I haven't read it in well over five years so maybe there have been some executions of people who claimed to be innocent. You can all decide for yourselves, but you have to read through all of the cases, like I did.

[Piggy]

I think Atheists make poor politicians. They seek what is right and not what is expedient. They don't pick their fights. They are not politically organized and don't think about public relations.

Wow. What a tremendously unsupported sweeping statement!

[Geek Goddess]

According to Hersh in the New Yorker article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact),
He didn't spend more than a few minutes reviewing any of the death penalty cases (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/06/12/death/) as governor of Texas.

I for one, think these are examples of a pattern of utter disregard for the life of people Bush considers "them" and not "us".

I have mixed feelings about capital punishment (see my sig line). My point is not necessarily to defend Bush, but to point out that he's being vilified as some sort of gleeful killer when the fact of the matter is that he merely REFUSED TO OVERTURN what literally dozens of judges, jurors, attorney, witnesses, etc., decided for each case - through the original trials and multiple appeals. BUSH did not decided to execute these people, he declined to second-guess what all these other people and the courts had decided. Actually, I would find it more arrogant of him to do so. The death penalities had been going on before Bush got there, and continued aferwards. Texas is a heavily Democratic state, with a minority (non-white) population right at 51% -Bush is the second (or maybe third, I can only find Briscoe) Republican since Reconstruction to be elected governor, and he is the only person elected to two consecutive terms as governor in about the same time frame. Texans regularly 'throw them out'

[Geek Goddess]

I recommend you take a look at the actions of the well funded, well organized Evangelical groups that began to grow in the Reagan years and have been working to change the US into a "Christian" nation. They have been promoting federal court appointments like Judge Moore of the "Ten Commandments in my courtroom" to school board members like the Dover school board wanting to add Bible teaching to science classes. These guys have shoved abstinence only education and HIV prevention programs down the throats of not just the US but the world as well. They are receiving millions in tax dollars for "faith based" programs which amount to rewards for getting your congregation to vote Republican. The extremists among them visit the White House often.


I will look at your source as well.

Not disagreeing. However, I meant (at least) for my point to be is that those people are trying to change the nation BACK to what they think it was for over 100 years, and that any group has as much right to try to influence the government as any other. As I said, I'm not religious, but I believe that 'abstinence' works every time, and as for 'shoving' - nations are only 'forced' to accept the policies when they choose to accept the dollars. I am not a Christian or religious, but that doesn't mean that I want to have affirmation of homosexuality shoved down MY throat, tax-funded support of art that couldn't be sold for Monopoly money in a back alley, or so on. I certainly don't care for what I see as liberal extremists getting the government to bend their way, either. They scare me. Creationists scare me, but I believe that science will overcome eventually (again).

[zakur]

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." - Karl Rove

[Piggy]

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." - Karl Rove
Which brings us back to the thread title. Looks like the stupid money's on the Republicans. :D

[Silly Green Monkey]

affirmation of homosexuality shoved down MY throat

Please explain this.

The only way homosexuality could possibly 'be shoved down your throat' would be if the government made heterosexual interactions illegal. I don't ever see that happening.

[Piggy]

Please explain this.

The only way homosexuality could possibly 'be shoved down your throat' would be if the government made heterosexual interactions illegal. I don't ever see that happening.
Oh, no. GG is saying that "affirmation" of homosexuality is being forced on people. Which means that GG would prefer that homosexuality be in no way "affirmed", that we instead require that homosexuals be marginalized and denied the same basic rights which other human beings enjoy.

[RandFan]

Wow. What a tremendously unsupported sweeping statement!:D As sweeping as Republicans are stupid? Hmmmm......

Hey, I've been wrong before. Please to point me in the direction of the atheist organization with a political agenda and PR arm?

[Piggy]

:D As sweeping as Republicans are stupid? Hmmmm......
Every bit. ;)

Hey, I've been wrong before. Please to point me in the direction of the atheist organization with a political agenda and PR arm?
Not sure I get your point, here. I'm just sayin', not all atheists are obsessed with the Pledge of Allegiance.

[zakur]

Hey, I've been wrong before. Please to point me in the direction of the atheist organization with a political agenda and PR arm?Here are links to American Atheists' current campaigns (http://www.atheists.org/action/) and suggestions for activism (http://www.atheists.org/action/help.html). And here's a link to their PR arm (http://www.atheists.org/pressreleases/).

The Council for Secular Humanism has a PR arm (http://www.secularhumanism.org/news/press.php). Among the CSH's objectives (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=about) is "To promote secular humanist principles to the public, media, and policy-makers."

Here is a link to the PR arm of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org/news/). Read more about the FFR here (http://www.ffrf.org/purposes/).

I believe all of the above qualify as non-profit, educational, tax-exempt organizations under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3), but you cannot deny that their agendas and action plans have definite political underpinnings.

[hammegk]

Let's see.... Unjustified pre-emptive war.... Incompetence in managing that war.... Refusal to correct mistakes which contribute to continued casualties.... Condoning torture.... Refusing to grant habeas corpus to people caught in blanket sweeps or turned in by bounty hunters.... Just the usual stuff, you know....
You forgot a couple of things. He is also 'our' elected POTUS, and he has more important things to do than waste time on useless posturing in bbs'es like this one.

[Geek Goddess]

Oh, no. GG is saying that "affirmation" of homosexuality is being forced on people. Which means that GG would prefer that homosexuality be in no way "affirmed", that we instead require that homosexuals be marginalized and denied the same basic rights which other human beings enjoy.


I will ignore your obvious attempts at personal insults. All citizens have the same civil rights in this country, in law if not yet in actual practive. There is a difference between upholding and enforcing existing laws for civil rights, and creating new classes of protected minorities.

There is a difference between tolerating and accepting something, and affirming/supporting something. I have a close friend who is practically a full-time gay 'activist' Mike says his goal is not just to get society to accept his lifestyle and protect his basic civil rights, he wants people to be silenced from criticizing his lifestyle, he wants the same stigma to be attached to someone saying 'homosexuality is wrong' as it is to use slurs against gays or racial groups. He wants people to SAY and AGREE that his lifestyle is perfectly acceptable. His words, not mine.

[Jekyll]

he wants the same stigma to be attached to someone saying 'homosexuality is wrong' as it is to use slurs against gays or racial groups. He wants people to SAY and AGREE that his lifestyle is perfectly acceptable. His words, not mine.

I thought saying 'homosexuality is wrong' was a slur against gays.

[Geek Goddess]

I thought saying 'homosexuality is wrong' was a slur against gays.


I would say 'fags will burn in hell' is a slur.

"Women are stupid and can't handle the world of work" is a slur. Beating the crap out of someone because you don't like what they do is evil.

"Women should stay home and take care of kids" is an opinion. I am free to view that as an outdated, uneducated, or just plain stupid opinion, but that doesn't mean that I should legislate against someone having that opinion.

In this thread, some A's are saying that B's are stupid for holding certain opinions. Is that a slur?

[bjb]

All citizens have the same civil rights in this country, in law if not yet in actual practive.

What about homosexuals in the military services? Why can't homosexuals get married if they have the same civil rights as everyone else?

I have a close friend who is practically a full-time gay 'activist' Mike says his goal is not just to get society to accept his lifestyle and protect his basic civil rights, he wants people to be silenced from criticizing his lifestyle, he wants the same stigma to be attached to someone saying 'homosexuality is wrong' as it is to use slurs against gays or racial groups. He wants people to SAY and AGREE that his lifestyle is perfectly acceptable. His words, not mine.

I'm glad you're still able to be friends with Mike even though you seem to disagree with him. What do you think about this hate speech law in Sweden?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat8.htm

Personally, I'm all for tolerance but people have the right in this country to say what the think, even if it is hate speech. I also get nervous when the government is able to tell people what they can say in their own churches. I think it's one thing for private citizens to convince other people to be on their side and to create a social stigma against certain behavior, but getting the government to pass laws to prevent others from being against you is something else. Show your friend Mike what's going on in Sweden and ask him if that's what he really wants here in America.

[Geek Goddess]

I'm glad you're still able to be friends with Mike even though you seem to disagree with him. What do you think about this hate speech law in Sweden?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat8.htm

.

I like Mike as a person, although I don't like his agenda and his methods. Of course, I don't like anyone who rants. He knows what I think, and we just don't talk about it. I suspect some day he may decide he doesn't care for me because I will not be swayed to agree with his positions. I remember this case in Sweden, and I think it is horrible, and just another kind of evil. Mike likes it. He says if you can take away the language, you can take away the thought. (sort of Orwellian, in my mind) He also has some interesting observations about the church cover-up of the issues on Catholic priests and some of their little 'problems' but that's even further off-topic.

[Jekyll]

"Women should stay home and take care of kids" is an opinion. I am free to view that as an outdated, uneducated, or just plain stupid opinion, but that doesn't mean that I should legislate against someone having that opinion.

While I'm not in favour of creating thought crimes, there already exists legislation against people telling you their opinion or acting on it.
Anyone who works with you telling you (in all seriousness) that "Women should stay home and take care of kids" or acts on it must be disciplined or your employer becomes liable.

At the end of the day I don't see saying "Homosexuality is wrong." is any better than saying "Blacks should know their place." and I don't think there is any reason for people to tolerate it.

In this thread, some A's are saying that B's are stupid for holding certain opinions. Is that a slur?
Sometimes, other times it's just the truth :p.

[Piggy]

I have a close friend who is practically a full-time gay 'activist' Mike says his goal is not just to get society to accept his lifestyle and protect his basic civil rights, he wants people to be silenced from criticizing his lifestyle, he wants the same stigma to be attached to someone saying 'homosexuality is wrong' as it is to use slurs against gays or racial groups. He wants people to SAY and AGREE that his lifestyle is perfectly acceptable. His words, not mine.
Well, that's going beyond mere "affirmation" now, isn't it?

[bjb]

Anyone who works with you telling you (in all seriousness) that "Women should stay home and take care of kids" or acts on it must be disciplined or your employer becomes liable.

At the end of the day I don't see saying "Homosexuality is wrong." is any better than saying "Blacks should know their place." and I don't think there is any reason for people to tolerate it.

In those situations, it is called harassment and it is not considered protected speech. I suppose these are the 'existing laws' referred to earlier.

Mike is scary. If he wasn't gay, he might have become another Fred Phelps. They both share the same basic mentality.

[RandFan]

Every bit. ;)


Not sure I get your point, here. I'm just sayin', not all atheists are obsessed with the Pledge of Allegiance.Oh, I agree absolutely. My point certainly wasn't to paint that picture. Thank you.

[RandFan]

Here are links to American Atheists' current campaigns (http://www.atheists.org/action/) and suggestions for activism (http://www.atheists.org/action/help.html). And here's a link to their PR arm (http://www.atheists.org/pressreleases/).

The Council for Secular Humanism has a PR arm (http://www.secularhumanism.org/news/press.php). Among the CSH's objectives (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=about) is "To promote secular humanist principles to the public, media, and policy-makers."

Here is a link to the PR arm of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org/news/). Read more about the FFR here (http://www.ffrf.org/purposes/).

I believe all of the above qualify as non-profit, educational, tax-exempt organizations under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3), but you cannot deny that their agendas and action plans have definite political underpinnings.Good news. They exist.

Bad news, they suck at doing their job (ok, maybe they just have a very large uphill battle to fight).