Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Right-Wing Extremism

11011121315

Posts

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Man fuck this pope
    NYT wrote:
    The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including ''the good of the universal church,'' according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.

    The correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office.

    The letter, signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was typed in Latin and is part of years of correspondence between the Diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle.

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Pope-Church-Abuse.html?hp

    Has there ever been a pope who stepped down for political reasons? i.e. not by being assassinated or whatever

    I didn't read this too closely, but popes have resigned before.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Man fuck this pope
    NYT wrote:
    The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including ''the good of the universal church,'' according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.

    The correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office.

    The letter, signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was typed in Latin and is part of years of correspondence between the Diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle.

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Pope-Church-Abuse.html?hp

    Has there ever been a pope who stepped down for political reasons? i.e. not by being assassinated or whatever
    Yes. However, you have to be pretty fucking horrible to do so.
    Papal resignation is envisaged as a possibility in canon 332 §2 of the Code of Canon Law and canon 44 §2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. The only conditions for the validity of the resignation are that it be made freely and be manifested properly.[1]
    In 1045, Pope Benedict IX agreed, for financial advantage, to resign the papacy. Pope Gregory VI, who to rid the Church of the scandalous Benedict IX had persuaded him to resign and became his successor, himself resigned in 1046 because the arrangement he had entered into was considered simoniacal; that is, to have been paid for. His successor, Pope Clement II, died in 1047 and Benedict IX became Pope again.

    The best known example of the resignation of a Pope is that of Pope Celestine V in 1294. After only five months of pontificate, he issued a solemn decree declaring it permissible for a Pope to resign, and then solemnly resigned. He lived two more years as a hermit and has been canonized. The papal decree that he issued ended any doubt among canonists about the possibility of a valid papal resignation.

    The last Pope to resign was Pope Gregory XII (1406-1415), who did so to end the Western Schism, which had reached the point when there were three claimants to the papal throne, Roman Pope Gregory XII, Avignon Pope Benedict XIII, and Antipope John XXIII. Before resigning he formally convened the already existing Council of Constance and authorized it to elect his successor.
    Nothing similar to the schism threatens to happen again. This pope also isn't a pussy like Celestine.

    Couscous on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Did the "solemn decree" mean that a pope would need to resign solemnly or can popes resign in a non-solemn fashion?

    Qingu on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Where's Ezio d'Auditore when you need him? This pope is overdue for a bare-fisted* ass-kicking.



    *One fist may actually be covered with a metal cestus.

    KalTorak on
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    There's an antipope?
    Sweeeeeet.

    L Ron Howard on
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Concerning political affiliations of religious groups and whatnot, until a few decades ago, being Catholic was a better indicator that you would vote Democratic than being black was. Think about that for a sec.

    Honestly, the primary sticking point for most Catholics about going to the left nowadays is abortion. Beyond that? Not so much.


    I adhere to the concept that the older your religion is, the less likely you are to give a crap about dogmatic stuff and the more likely you are to trend liberal. Judaism, Hinduism, other eastern religions? Obvious. Catholicism? Pretty much on the threshold. Then you get to the born-agains, the evangelical sects which split off, and particularly into the more recent ones like Mormons? There's your hardcore social conservatives.

    Jragghen on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Concerning political affiliations of religious groups and whatnot, until a few decades ago, being Catholic was a better indicator that you would vote Democratic than being black was. Think about that for a sec.

    Honestly, the primary sticking point for most Catholics about going to the left nowadays is abortion. Beyond that? Not so much.


    I adhere to the concept that the older your religion is, the less likely you are to give a crap about dogmatic stuff and the more likely you are to trend liberal. Judaism, Hinduism, other eastern religions? Obvious. Catholicism? Pretty much on the threshold. Then you get to the born-agains, the evangelical sects which split off, and particularly into the more recent ones like Mormons? There's your hardcore social conservatives.
    Catholics have been trending more Republican since the Republicans dropped the anti-Catholicism plank from their platform (and yes, that was one of the founding three planks of the Republican platform, the other two being abolition and prohibition).

    Thanatos on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    There's an antipope?
    Sweeeeeet.

    Now all we have to do is dress him up like a little boy and wait for the explosion.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jragghen wrote: »
    I adhere to the concept that the older your religion is, the less likely you are to give a crap about dogmatic stuff and the more likely you are to trend liberal. Judaism, Hinduism, other eastern religions? Obvious. Catholicism? Pretty much on the threshold. Then you get to the born-agains, the evangelical sects which split off, and particularly into the more recent ones like Mormons? There's your hardcore social conservatives.
    It's because modern religions are themselves offshoots or "version upgrades" of lax or drifting religions and therefore tend to try to innoculate themselves against similar changes to a greater extent.

    Like how Islam knows enough to say explicitly "Muhammad is the last prophet" so that some bright guy won't have the same idea 600 years down the road as Muhammad had.

    Qingu on
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    I adhere to the concept that the older your religion is, the less likely you are to give a crap about dogmatic stuff and the more likely you are to trend liberal. Judaism, Hinduism, other eastern religions? Obvious. Catholicism? Pretty much on the threshold. Then you get to the born-agains, the evangelical sects which split off, and particularly into the more recent ones like Mormons? There's your hardcore social conservatives.
    It's because modern religions are themselves offshoots or "version upgrades" of lax or drifting religions and therefore tend to try to innoculate themselves against similar changes to a greater extent.

    Like how Islam knows enough to say explicitly "Muhammad is the last prophet" so that some bright guy won't have the same idea 600 years down the road as Muhammad had.

    Someone still had that same idea nonetheless

    Jragghen on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jokerman wrote: »

    Man fuck that. I have had sex with plenty of crazy fucking women, I draw the line at sticking my dick in a Nazi.

    Seriously. As a friend of mine wisely says, DON'T STICK IT IN THE CRAZY. IT MIGHT BE CATCHING.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Of course, not without claiming that there won't be any other prophets for at least a thousand years. :)

    What do Mormons say about this, actually? It seems like Cult 101 to do this kind of thing, but I'm actually not familiar with their views on the subject.

    Qingu on
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    With Catholicism, there's basically a huge divide between the Vatican and a large portion of Catholics on many issues these days. They tend to be pretty socially progressive and left wing, and you'd have a difficult time finding a Catholic who wasn't upset to some degree over how the Pope has handled the abuses we've all been hearing about.

    Basically, it's important to make the distinction between everyday Catholics and the current leadership.

    In Canada, Catholics pretty reliably support the Liberals and NDP.

    TubularLuggage on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    With Catholicism, there's basically a huge divide between the Vatican and a large portion of Catholics on many issues these days. They tend to be pretty socially progressive and left wing, and you'd have a difficult time finding a Catholic who wasn't upset to some degree over how the Pope has handled the abuses we've all been hearing about.

    Basically, it's important to make the distinction between everyday Catholics and the current leadership.

    In Canada, Catholics pretty reliably support the Liberals and NDP.

    The big issue is still Abortion though.

    And that all depends on how your countries politics play it up.

    Here in Canada, it's basically a non-issue.

    In the US, otoh, it pushes many away from the Left.

    shryke on
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I've found that individually, most practicing Catholics and Christians tend to be pretty normal easy to get along with decent people. As long as you consider that most people regardless of religion are pretty easy to get along with as the standard. It's only when they're in a big group that some sort of hive mind activates and things get a little strange.

    Evangelicals? No. Their hive is much stronger, the overqueen brain mother has a constant steady grip on the reigns.

    It seems like in most groups or organizations people are allowed to have opinions and rub brain cells together and come up with ideas about most things. Hardcore evangelicals just seem to shut down and go blank instead of consider contradiction.

    I was once lured to a "Youth Group" to play basketball and pool and stuff. I had no idea I was being lured to some creepy born again type shit. It was traumatic and as unprepared as I was, watching 12 year olds hold up their hands to the sky and chant made me very uncomfortable. I can't really see any part of it as a positive thing. Especially not in politics.

    dispatch.o on
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Fred Clark tries to prove that not all evangelicals are zealous nuts. Anything can be perverted and twisted into a tragic form.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Of course, not without claiming that there won't be any other prophets for at least a thousand years. :)

    What do Mormons say about this, actually? It seems like Cult 101 to do this kind of thing, but I'm actually not familiar with their views on the subject.

    The Mormons today consider the President/Prophet to be the sole individual who can receive God's direct counsel and direction. Ironically, the church's doctrine and emphasis on personal revelation allows God to answer questions directly posed to him through prayer. As discussed in "Under the Banner of Heaven," this means that God can tell people things like "polygamy is ok" or "you should murder that wench," thus allowing for the actions contrary to yet justified by doctrine. The current Mormons "solve" this problem by saying there is only one prophet, and that when they speak on matters, the matter is closed. So God can tell you to start a polygamous fun house, but your words carry no weight with the church unless the Prophet says otherwise.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    This thread needs to be about right-wing extremism and not Christianity and Catholicism. If you bring up religion, it better be directly pertaining to politics.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    This thread needs to be about right-wing extremism and not Christianity and Catholicism. If you bring up religion, it better be directly pertaining to politics.

    Then I have something I've been wondering about.

    The amount of money poured into the prop13 stuff in California, and I presume other state elections by various central religious organizations.

    Why are these central "megachurch" entities still considered tax exempt?

    It's come up a couple of time in local politics (SF Bay Area) and the general result is a bunch of people grumbling and saying, "Someone should do something!". Complaining a little more, and then....

    ... nothing.

    Has there ever been a court case or lawsuit against religious institutions that play in politics? Has a church or central tax-exempt entity ever had tax exemption revoked? What would be required for this to actually happen, and how would one go about filing a case to such an outcome?

    edit:

    I know the KKK got destroyed by taxes because they at one time were an organization with central leadership and address. They were kind of an easy target, and it didn't really offend 40-50% of the populace the way hitting a quasi-religious political movement may.

    edit2: For those who don't know or don't follow, from what I have been able to read and understand over the last two years or so. The (Utah) Mormon church put somewhere around $26,000,000 into passing an amendment to the state constitution of California that would recognize marriage to be only applicable to a man and a woman.

    dispatch.o on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    This thread needs to be about right-wing extremism and not Christianity and Catholicism. If you bring up religion, it better be directly pertaining to politics.

    Right wing politics and Christianity are so intertwined in the United States I'm not sure if you can actually detangle them

    override367 on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    No, they really aren't as much as you'd think.

    Sure, they need to pander to even have a chance at winning, but it's not as if any church or religious group actually sets policy.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    No, they really aren't as much as you'd think.

    Sure, they need to pander to even have a chance at winning, but it's not as if any church or religious group actually sets policy.

    I'm pretty sure the former leads directly to the latter. If enough politicians support a policy - oh, let's say, gay marriage - as a direct result of a religion - let's throw out Christianity as an example - then isn't that effectively that religion setting policy?

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    This thread needs to be about right-wing extremism and not Christianity and Catholicism. If you bring up religion, it better be directly pertaining to politics.

    Then I have something I've been wondering about.

    The amount of money poured into the prop13 stuff in California, and I presume other state elections by various central religious organizations.

    Why are these central "megachurch" entities still considered tax exempt?

    It's come up a couple of time in local politics (SF Bay Area) and the general result is a bunch of people grumbling and saying, "Someone should do something!". Complaining a little more, and then....

    ... nothing.

    Has there ever been a court case or lawsuit against religious institutions that play in politics? Has a church or central tax-exempt entity ever had tax exemption revoked? What would be required for this to actually happen, and how would one go about filing a case to such an outcome?

    If anyone made a serious attempt that looked to be going places, you'd get enough of an outcry that supporting the measure would be political suicide.

    I won't say it's never going to happen, but the seeds of such a movement aren't there. We haven't even begun the R&D necessary to create the tree that would some day grow to bear the fruit that contains the seeds of such a movement.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    This thread needs to be about right-wing extremism and not Christianity and Catholicism. If you bring up religion, it better be directly pertaining to politics.

    Then I have something I've been wondering about.

    The amount of money poured into the prop13 stuff in California, and I presume other state elections by various central religious organizations.

    Why are these central "megachurch" entities still considered tax exempt?

    It's come up a couple of time in local politics (SF Bay Area) and the general result is a bunch of people grumbling and saying, "Someone should do something!". Complaining a little more, and then....

    ... nothing.

    Has there ever been a court case or lawsuit against religious institutions that play in politics? Has a church or central tax-exempt entity ever had tax exemption revoked? What would be required for this to actually happen, and how would one go about filing a case to such an outcome?

    If anyone made a serious attempt that looked to be going places, you'd get enough of an outcry that supporting the measure would be political suicide.

    I won't say it's never going to happen, but the seeds of such a movement aren't there. We haven't even begun the R&D necessary to create the tree that would some day grow to bear the fruit that contains the seeds of such a movement.

    Wouldn't the IRS be the ones to decide whether a church group is really a tax-exempt political activist group?

    Who would go about telling them they had to pay taxes?

    dispatch.o on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    This thread needs to be about right-wing extremism and not Christianity and Catholicism. If you bring up religion, it better be directly pertaining to politics.

    Then I have something I've been wondering about.

    The amount of money poured into the prop13 stuff in California, and I presume other state elections by various central religious organizations.

    Why are these central "megachurch" entities still considered tax exempt?

    It's come up a couple of time in local politics (SF Bay Area) and the general result is a bunch of people grumbling and saying, "Someone should do something!". Complaining a little more, and then....

    ... nothing.

    Has there ever been a court case or lawsuit against religious institutions that play in politics? Has a church or central tax-exempt entity ever had tax exemption revoked? What would be required for this to actually happen, and how would one go about filing a case to such an outcome?

    [...]

    edit2: For those who don't know or don't follow, from what I have been able to read and understand over the last two years or so. The (Utah) Mormon church put somewhere around $26,000,000 into passing an amendment to the state constitution of California that would recognize marriage to be only applicable to a man and a woman.
    n general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

    Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

    An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

    Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
    Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.

    Under the substantial part test, an organization that conducts excessive lobbying in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status, resulting in all of its income being subject to tax.
    In addition, section 501(c)(3) organizations that lose their tax-exempt status due to excessive lobbying, other than churches and private foundations, are subject to an excise tax equal to five percent of their lobbying expenditures for the year in which they cease to qualify for exemption.

    Further, a tax equal to five percent of the lobbying expenditures for the year may be imposed against organization managers, jointly and severally, who agree to the making of such expenditures knowing that the expenditures would likely result in the loss of tax-exempt status.

    Private foundations are subject to a different set of taxes on their lobbying expenditures; churches are not subject to excise taxes on excessive lobbying.
    All emphasis mine. Given that the LDS Church makes a fuckton of money each year, and that their missionary and legitimately religious expenditures almost certainly dwarf the 26m cited, qualifying their Prop 8 expenditures as "substantial" may simply be in opposition to precedent.

    Salvation122 on
    sig.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The fact is that mere religiosity should not qualify a group for 501(c)(3) status. It's an unfair burden to groups like Planned Parenthood that are required to set up separate groups that aren't 501(c)(3) in order to do their lobbying for them.

    501(c)(3) groups should be banned from lobbying altogether.

    Thanatos on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    That's a very fair statement actually, and one you'll hear bandied about from time to time.

    Of course those church group lobbiers will scream Church and State until your ears bleed even though they are trying to use it opposite day style!

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    They're usually very careful to funnel their financial support in ways that don't violate the law.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    They're usually very careful to funnel their financial support in ways that don't violate the law.

    It's always bothered me how the game is played when it comes to finance and religion.

    It also seems like the Republican party is just better at it. Not that Democrats don't do it too, I just don't think they have as good a contract with the Lord of The Underworld or something.

    So do you set up another semi-tax exempt filing system so religious groups only pay taxes on the stuff that goes to political activism?

    dispatch.o on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    No, they just complain about their rights and not pay a dime on taxes.

    This reminds me, my mega church needs to do more preaching in Aruba...

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Props to Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana);
    "A couple of weeks before the alleged incident occurred, I was walking across the bridge in Selma, Ala., with John Lewis," said Pence. "I take at face value what John Lewis said. If John Lewis said he heard it, I believe he's a man of integrity. And I would denounce those kinds of statements in the strongest possible terms."

    Not that this would be newsworthy in a functional democracy.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    A pity he didn't say that at the time.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Well that would have taken one of them whatchamacallits...... Spine.

    Orochi_Rockman on
  • YallYall Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    A pity he didn't say that at the time.

    He did from what I can gather from the article (it links back to a March 21st story where he first condemed them).
    But Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who condemned the reported slurs in a March 21 CNN appearance, told me that he still believes the story.

    Yall on
    My band: https://youtu.be/rw2ersccCsQ[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist rugged, weathered Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So since we're on the topic of conservatives and the Mormon church, does anyone know if the church hierarchy ever condemned GB's comments about Social Justice and church? Aren't the Mormon's all about social justice (from what I remember of the television commercials.)

    I mean, GB is Mormon, isn't he?

    DisruptedCapitalist on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't know who you're talking about

    Salvation122 on
    sig.png
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't know who you're talking about
    Glenn Beck.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't know who you're talking about

    Glenn Beck. He went on a rant about how 'social justice' is just codewords for 'communism' or something awhile back.

    Here.

    moniker on
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist rugged, weathered Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't know who you're talking about

    this

    Whoops, Moniker beat me. (With a much funnier link, I might add...)

    DisruptedCapitalist on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    This seems to fit this thread better than the general Republican thread (though now that I look that thread got locked), but, from 538:
    tea+party+racism1.PNG
    tea+party+racism2.PNG
    tea+party+racism3.PNG
    tea+party+racism4.PNG

    Which is a series of charts taken from a survey which looked at (a sample of just white people) whether or not one approved of the Tea Party Movement and what one's opinions were to a number of minority groups/immigrants, showing that Tea Party movement supporters aren't anywhere near mainstream even among just whites. (Schaller notes that a better comparison might have been done between whites and white Republicans/conservatives but given this was looked at in comparison to another study which tried to paint Tea Party supporters as actually mainstream and not racist, then this was a good start).

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Sign In or Register to comment.