There are a lot of Republican voters who are sick of being promised red meat. They want their leaders to come through and end abortion, kill the federal government and put the minorities/gays/liberals/foreigners back in their place.
I don't know if it's even applicable to call this new bloc of voters Republicans. I still think of Republicans as politically-oriented people who have policies and legislation on their mind.
The Teapers are only about vague philosophies and ideology unfounded in reality. They're basically the party of Is/Ought.
I think the personal turning point for me was just a while back when my brother, a fairly staunch conservative, asked aloud to me, "Why are the GOP candidates talking so much about gay rights and abortion? We're not losing jobs because of gay marriage. Abortions haven't made the economy tank. Any moderate conservatives out there are going to stay home or vote Democrat this cycle because of how hard the holy-rollers are hitting these talking points that don't matter. We're going to lose, and it's going to be our fault."
Which really got me thinking, what is it that the GOP field actually stands for? Opposing Sharia law? Being against whatever Obama is for?
That's not a platform. That's ridiculous.
They're trying to bring the sexy back, and inflation rates and bond yields just aren't sexy to most.
About the political brinkmanship, the Dems need to stop being pussies about calling Pubs on their shit. Just because the Right uses emotional appeals to pass some reprehensible shit doesn't mean that making emotional appeals is using the Dark Side of the Force. There's absolutely nothing wrong with arguing liberal causes with honest emotional appeals. We need to start arguing that regressive Republican policies are wrong, not just in the 2+2=5 sense as we've been doing, but in the "this will kill people and kick your dog" sense.
Yes the hard-core facists will moan and scream and threaten race wars or whatever insanity, but they do that whenever a Dem sits in the big chair. We need to start associating the politicians who court these sort of people with their honestly anti-American beliefs. Demanding that an honestly elected politician step down without criminal charges is antidemocratic and anti-American, full stop. We need to stop pussy-footing around these issues, and stop letting these crazies shoot their mouths off without rebuttal.
The biggest issue in all this is that conservatism is becoming a religion to these people. "Reagan was awesome, the top 1% have our best interests in mind, free markets are good in all cases" aren't just political beliefs to these people, they're articles of faith. They believe them as much as they believe Jesus loves them, and there is a just god watching over us. Look at the anger that manifests among these people if you link Snopes, NPR, or anything save Fox. We don't get angry if you suggest we read a Fox article. We may poke fun at it, refute it, or roll our eyes, but red-faced rage is not a commonly seen emotion among liberals, Olbermann notwithstanding. I don't know how to get such people back from the brink, and that frustrates me endlessly.
The biggest issue in all this is that conservatism is becoming a religion to these people. "Reagan was awesome, the top 1% have our best interests in mind, free markets are good in all cases" aren't just political beliefs to these people, they're articles of faith. They believe them as much as they believe Jesus loves them, and there is a just god watching over us. Look at the anger that manifests among these people if you link Snopes, NPR, or anything save Fox. We don't get angry if you suggest we read a Fox article. We may poke fun at it, refute it, or roll our eyes, but red-faced rage is not a commonly seen emotion among liberals, Olbermann notwithstanding. I don't know how to get such people back from the brink, and that frustrates me endlessly.
I guess you weren't paying attention during the Bush years.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I think it's legal, according to the "President is untouchable on anti-terrorism measures" theories we've gotten out of the last few years. Hardball, right?
No? I mean, the idea that an American president would seriously entertain the idea of shipping off his political opponents to a gulag is just bizarre.
I think the idea that the Speaker of the House or the Senate Minority Leader would seriously entertain the idea of restraining an economic recovery in order to hamstring the President's reelection campaign to be pretty bizarre too, but here we are. If you bring a knife to a fistfight, do you really get to complain if the other guy pulls out a gun?
I don't know if it's even applicable to call this new bloc of voters Republicans. I still think of Republicans as politically-oriented people who have policies and legislation on their mind.
The Teapers are only about vague philosophies and ideology unfounded in reality. They're basically the party of Is/Ought.
It's the fruit of the Southern Strategy. The GOP always had a core of those folks balanced out by sane actors and a ton of actual Republican liberals, but the party made huge gains by embracing the racist South/Midwest. The end result is that the racist/religious/xenophobic minority became the majority of the base. Now, they're just claiming leadership.
I think it's legal, according to the "President is untouchable on anti-terrorism measures" theories we've gotten out of the last few years. Hardball, right?
No? I mean, the idea that an American president would seriously entertain the idea of shipping off his political opponents to a gulag is just bizarre.
I think the idea that the Speaker of the House or the Senate Minority Leader would seriously entertain the idea of restraining an economic recovery in order to hamstring the President's reelection campaign to be pretty bizarre too, but here we are. If you bring a knife to a fistfight, do you really get to complain if the other guy pulls out a gun?
Again, there is a difference between perfectly legal, if controversial, legislative and political tactics and sending your political opponents off to gulags.
Filibustering a bill is not even in the same solar system as rounding up the opposition and ruling by decree. If Republican legislators are in fact horrible and having a negative effect on the country, the electorate is free to kick them out of office.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I think it's legal, according to the "President is untouchable on anti-terrorism measures" theories we've gotten out of the last few years. Hardball, right?
No? I mean, the idea that an American president would seriously entertain the idea of shipping off his political opponents to a gulag is just bizarre.
I think the idea that the Speaker of the House or the Senate Minority Leader would seriously entertain the idea of restraining an economic recovery in order to hamstring the President's reelection campaign to be pretty bizarre too, but here we are. If you bring a knife to a fistfight, do you really get to complain if the other guy pulls out a gun?
Again, there is a difference between perfectly legal, if controversial, legislative and political tactics and sending your political opponents off to gulags.
Filibustering a bill is not even in the same solar system as rounding up the opposition and ruling by decree. If Republican legislators are in fact horrible and having a negative effect on the country, the electorate is free to kick them out of office.
You're forgetting that posters in this thread generally seem to believe that the electorate cannot make informed decisions because it is too stupid, or is evil. Their solution, apparently, is to be more deceptive, dishonest, and destructive in order to harness the moronic electorate and once they have power, they'll do benign things that everyone will love.
Because they are benign, and only have the people's interests at heart, and as soon as they have all the power and control they'll prove it. It's totally those other guys who are a bunch of maniac fascist destroyers.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I think the Tea Party is fairly well proof the electorate can't make informed decisions.
I think it's legal, according to the "President is untouchable on anti-terrorism measures" theories we've gotten out of the last few years. Hardball, right?
No? I mean, the idea that an American president would seriously entertain the idea of shipping off his political opponents to a gulag is just bizarre.
I think the idea that the Speaker of the House or the Senate Minority Leader would seriously entertain the idea of restraining an economic recovery in order to hamstring the President's reelection campaign to be pretty bizarre too, but here we are. If you bring a knife to a fistfight, do you really get to complain if the other guy pulls out a gun?
Again, there is a difference between perfectly legal, if controversial, legislative and political tactics and sending your political opponents off to gulags.
Filibustering a bill is not even in the same solar system as rounding up the opposition and ruling by decree. If Republican legislators are in fact horrible and having a negative effect on the country, the electorate is free to kick them out of office.
You're forgetting that posters in this thread generally seem to believe that the electorate cannot make informed decisions because it is too stupid, or is evil. Their solution, apparently, is to be more deceptive, dishonest, and destructive in order to harness the moronic electorate and once they have power, they'll do benign things that everyone will love.
Because they are benign, and only have the people's interests at heart, and as soon as they have all the power and control they'll prove it. It's totally those other guys who are a bunch of maniac fascist destroyers.
It appears that someone has stuffed straw into the clothes of a man
perhaps in some attempt to make some sort of man of straw
You're forgetting that posters in this thread generally seem to believe that the electorate cannot make informed decisions because it is too stupid, or is evil. Their solution, apparently, is to be more deceptive, dishonest, and destructive in order to harness the moronic electorate and once they have power, they'll do benign things that everyone will love.
Because they are benign, and only have the people's interests at heart, and as soon as they have all the power and control they'll prove it. It's totally those other guys who are a bunch of maniac fascist destroyers.
Spool32, I worked retail for over a decade. People in general are either stupid (some of the time) or lazy (almost all of the time).
I think it's legal, according to the "President is untouchable on anti-terrorism measures" theories we've gotten out of the last few years. Hardball, right?
No? I mean, the idea that an American president would seriously entertain the idea of shipping off his political opponents to a gulag is just bizarre.
I think the idea that the Speaker of the House or the Senate Minority Leader would seriously entertain the idea of restraining an economic recovery in order to hamstring the President's reelection campaign to be pretty bizarre too, but here we are. If you bring a knife to a fistfight, do you really get to complain if the other guy pulls out a gun?
Again, there is a difference between perfectly legal, if controversial, legislative and political tactics and sending your political opponents off to gulags.
Filibustering a bill is not even in the same solar system as rounding up the opposition and ruling by decree. If Republican legislators are in fact horrible and having a negative effect on the country, the electorate is free to kick them out of office.
No, sending people to gulags would fall precisely in the category of "legal, if controversial", especially once you run it through the media. Remember when torture was a bad thing?
At the end of the day, it seems like the complaints about the GOP in this thread can be distilled down to the fact that liberals are pissed off that the GOP is good at playing political hardball while Democrats in Congress seem to be determined to play whiffle-ball.
Politics in this country have always been a bloodsport. Several times in our nation's history, different political factions were actively shooting at one another. Complaining that the GOP are a bunch of meanies who won't play nice comes off as petty whining, frankly.
And conservatives don't get the fact that the shit they're doing has led to people shooting each other, and that this is a really bad thing. Just don't go around whining when you or someone you care about gets a modern assault rifle round through their head in the future thanks to your little game of "hardball."
That sounds vaguely like a threat. If you believe violence in response to political disagreements is appropriate, I don't know what to say to you.
Just to check: when conservative groups' lobbying causes a country to impose the death penalty on homosexuality, that doesn't count as "violence," right? Talking about how gay people and liberals are trying to destroy America through civil rights and universal health care doesn't either, right? And saying "give us what we want, or we'll blow up the world economy," that's not violence either, right?
I think it's legal, according to the "President is untouchable on anti-terrorism measures" theories we've gotten out of the last few years. Hardball, right?
No? I mean, the idea that an American president would seriously entertain the idea of shipping off his political opponents to a gulag is just bizarre.
I think the idea that the Speaker of the House or the Senate Minority Leader would seriously entertain the idea of restraining an economic recovery in order to hamstring the President's reelection campaign to be pretty bizarre too, but here we are. If you bring a knife to a fistfight, do you really get to complain if the other guy pulls out a gun?
Again, there is a difference between perfectly legal, if controversial, legislative and political tactics and sending your political opponents off to gulags.
Filibustering a bill is not even in the same solar system as rounding up the opposition and ruling by decree. If Republican legislators are in fact horrible and having a negative effect on the country, the electorate is free to kick them out of office.
You're forgetting that posters in this thread generally seem to believe that the electorate cannot make informed decisions because it is too stupid, or is evil. Their solution, apparently, is to be more deceptive, dishonest, and destructive in order to harness the moronic electorate and once they have power, they'll do benign things that everyone will love.
Because they are benign, and only have the people's interests at heart, and as soon as they have all the power and control they'll prove it. It's totally those other guys who are a bunch of maniac fascist destroyers.
Oh, you think we are all conservative republicans.
At the end of the day, it seems like the complaints about the GOP in this thread can be distilled down to the fact that liberals are pissed off that the GOP is good at playing political hardball while Democrats in Congress seem to be determined to play whiffle-ball.
Politics in this country have always been a bloodsport. Several times in our nation's history, different political factions were actively shooting at one another. Complaining that the GOP are a bunch of meanies who won't play nice comes off as petty whining, frankly.
And conservatives don't get the fact that the shit they're doing has led to people shooting each other, and that this is a really bad thing. Just don't go around whining when you or someone you care about gets a modern assault rifle round through their head in the future thanks to your little game of "hardball."
That sounds vaguely like a threat. If you believe violence in response to political disagreements is appropriate, I don't know what to say to you.
Just to check: when conservative groups' lobbying causes a country to impose the death penalty on homosexuality, that doesn't count as "violence," right? Talking about how gay people and liberals are trying to destroy America through civil rights and universal health care doesn't either, right? And saying "give us what we want, or we'll blow up the world economy," that's not violence either, right?
Thanatos has turned my apparent straw man into a real live boy! Ugandans are apparently too stupid to avoid the siren song of a "conservative group". So that's either the sort of thing he also believes about Americans, or he believes the people of Uganda are especially susceptible to such nefarious influence.
Just to check: when conservative groups' lobbying causes a country to impose the death penalty on homosexuality, that doesn't count as "violence," right? Talking about how gay people and liberals are trying to destroy America through civil rights and universal health care doesn't either, right? And saying "give us what we want, or we'll blow up the world economy," that's not violence either, right?
You are talking to a guy who thinks the last political riot in the U.S. was the '68 Democratic convention. Outside of the not that subtle political dig, it shows a woeful ignorance of American history.
That wasn't even the last big political riot in 1968. It was just the biggest one to take place in front of the massed American media. That year.
Great, now Republicans are, according to this thread, KKK members, terrorists, Nazis, and homosexual killers. Anything else you want to throw down the stupid tube?
I wish I was a moderator right now, I would be locking this thread NINE TIMES for being moronic.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
"But that's not what we meant!" And then they don't explain what phrases like that are suppose to mean. That or the explanation has nothing to do with the phrase. "TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY, OF COURSE!" Via the second amendment? "STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH."
Just to check: when conservative groups' lobbying causes a country to impose the death penalty on homosexuality, that doesn't count as "violence," right? Talking about how gay people and liberals are trying to destroy America through civil rights and universal health care doesn't either, right? And saying "give us what we want, or we'll blow up the world economy," that's not violence either, right?
1. Last I checked, that law was passed by the government of Uganda. I'm not really sure what some idiotic law in Africa has to do with the discussion of American politics.
2. Nope. Saying bad things about your political opponents is not violence.
3. Nope, that's not violence, either.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Great, now Republicans are, according to this thread, KKK members, terrorists, Nazis, and homosexual killers. Anything else you want to throw down the stupid tube?
I wish I was a moderator right now, I would be locking this thread NINE TIMES for being moronic.
Have all you special snowflake Republicans actually spent much time listening to your mates? The thing about spouting unbalanced, inflammatory rhetoric pretty much nonstop for a couple decades is that, over time, people actually start to believe you mean what you say.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Great, now Republicans are, according to this thread, KKK members, terrorists, Nazis, and homosexual killers. Anything else you want to throw down the stupid tube?
I wish I was a moderator right now, I would be locking this thread NINE TIMES for being moronic.
The party embodies a lot of qualities of those things though, is the point. Let's not forget that the Tea Party, which I guess counts as a portion of the party, embodies a lot of fascist qualities (quite literally).
You're forgetting that posters in this thread generally seem to believe that the electorate cannot make informed decisions because it is too stupid, or is evil. Their solution, apparently, is to be more deceptive, dishonest, and destructive in order to harness the moronic electorate and once they have power, they'll do benign things that everyone will love.
Because they are benign, and only have the people's interests at heart, and as soon as they have all the power and control they'll prove it. It's totally those other guys who are a bunch of maniac fascist destroyers.
No, I would prefer that all political parties be composed of reasonable, decent people. I would prefer fair and honest discussions about issues. I would prefer that candidates do their homework to make sure that their ideas are actually workable. I would prefer that people are willing to explore the consequences of actions instead of handwaving them away if it looks unpleasant. However, this is not the case, and the Republicans are doing a lot more to keep it that way than the Democrats are. In order for The People to make good decisions, they need to have a good idea of what's going on and why, and a lot don't.
1. Last I checked, that law was passed by the government of Uganda. I'm not really sure what some idiotic law in Africa has to do with the discussion of American politics.
2. Nope. Saying bad things about your political opponents is not violence.
3. Nope, that's not violence, either.
Well, that law and the politicians behind it have gotten support from American churches:
Great, now Republicans are, according to this thread, KKK members, terrorists, Nazis, and homosexual killers. Anything else you want to throw down the stupid tube?
I wish I was a moderator right now, I would be locking this thread NINE TIMES for being moronic.
The party embodies a lot of qualities of those things though, is the point. Let's not forget that the Tea Party, which I guess counts as a portion of the party, embodies a lot of fascist qualities (quite literally).
The Tea Party has a lot of fascist qualities? I'm trying to think of any fascist movement that supports a peaceful and orderly change of government through the electoral process.
What has the Tea Party done to make liberals wet themselves so badly? They've organized people to vote in primaries and elections and held a bunch of protests. Ooohhh, scary!
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Listen, I'm a voting conservative, and I didn't watch the debate last night. Don't you guys know there's football on?
In other news, this thread is awful. Let's see, in the first few paragraphs, Republicans are compared to KKK members and terrorists, Oh, neat, you found ONE GUY that soured on his party and this must be taken as the ultimate truth. Don't make me point out all the southern democrats that defected their party. Hell, there's a wiki article about party switching right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States.
Are... are you seriously equating leaving the party of Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint, and George Allen for the party of Barack Obama with leaving the party of Martin Luther King for the party of Strom Thurmond? The mind boggles. And context matters.
This guy's beef stems from the blocking of the debt limit, like that should be something we do nonchalantly. With as much debt as we have, I don't know, maybe we SHOULD start talking about spending limits? "Don't worry guys, if you pass this thing we promise we'll figure it out by next time. Trust us." [Cue 87 times later...] If Republicans are "terrorists" for slowing down the process, that would make Democrats a Ponzi scheme. Let's spend money we don't have indefinitely! Everything will be AOK!
First of all, this isn't like your household budget. But even if it were, the question would come down to "at what point do we not want to borrow $100 to save $500?" And the answer to that is "never."
Second, I am happy to discuss the wisdom of borrowing more. But what I'm not going to consider appropriate is doing it while one party is threatening to blow up the world economy if they don't get their way. That's not how this process is supposed to work, and the idea that a political party would actually stoop to that sort of low is pretty appalling.
Listen, the whole setup of government was supposed to be a slow, obstructionist process that eventually farts out law that benefits all citizens. It's a grind only MMO players could appreciate. I can point to a whole set of reasons why the federal government is broken, but Republicans aren't even on the top five (oh, for example, the 17th Amendment). Then the "solution" is voter manipulation? Make PACs that confuse the voting public into funding candidates they would normally vote against? Ugh.
Yeah, it's really unfair to establish PACs that lie to people, telling them things like "Barack Obama is a Muslim," or "Barack Obama and ACORN are practicing widespread voter fraud," or "liberals are traitors who are trying to destroy America," or...
Please, stop the flame war stupidity over the Repubs. They're not anti-democracy, nor are they anti-republic. I know this message board is highly Dem, but this crap is just too much.
You should really read the article in the OP and address those points, specifically, where you feel he's wrong about the Republicans being anti-democracy, instead of saying "they just aren't."
PS: There's a lot of people making six figures on Capitol Hill. I know LA's making 85K, and that's barely a position at all. I also know several people who work for the opposite side of the isle that they vote. With the way the beltway swings political parties, you have to be able to work for whoever you can whenever you can if you want to be a career politician.
I was giving context to the article, and pointing out that the guy is making a declaration against interests.
The party embodies a lot of qualities of those things though, is the point. Let's not forget that the Tea Party, which I guess counts as a portion of the party, embodies a lot of fascist qualities (quite literally).
The Tea Party has a lot of fascist qualities? I'm trying to think of any fascist movement that supports a peaceful and orderly change of government through the electoral process.
[/quote]
Well, there's the Nazi Party. Hitler and his party gained power through elections, after all.
The Tea Party has a lot of fascist qualities? I'm trying to think of any fascist movement that supports a peaceful and orderly change of government through the electoral process.
Well, there's the Nazi Party. Hitler and his party gained power through elections, after all.
I think it's legal, according to the "President is untouchable on anti-terrorism measures" theories we've gotten out of the last few years. Hardball, right?
No? I mean, the idea that an American president would seriously entertain the idea of shipping off his political opponents to a gulag is just bizarre. And the idea that the rest of Congress, the courts or the military would go along with it is even weirder.
One of the leading candidates for the Republican presidential candidacy suggested that we investigate Congress for un-American sentiments. A leading group of Republicans were pushing the idea that the sitting president is a Manchurian Candidate. There's significant circumstantial evidence that suggests that a Bush political operative not only engineered a corruption conviction against a former Democratic governor of Alabama (sending him to jail), but perhaps even rigged the election against him in the first place.
Not that I would ever endorse Thanatos's tactics, but dispatching one's political opponents in an underhanded and brutal way, or casting them as "the other" is not exactly unheard of.
1. Last I checked, that law was passed by the government of Uganda. I'm not really sure what some idiotic law in Africa has to do with the discussion of American politics.
2. Nope. Saying bad things about your political opponents is not violence.
3. Nope, that's not violence, either.
Well, that law and the politicians behind it have gotten support from American churches:
Great, now Republicans are, according to this thread, KKK members, terrorists, Nazis, and homosexual killers. Anything else you want to throw down the stupid tube?
I wish I was a moderator right now, I would be locking this thread NINE TIMES for being moronic.
The party embodies a lot of qualities of those things though, is the point. Let's not forget that the Tea Party, which I guess counts as a portion of the party, embodies a lot of fascist qualities (quite literally).
The Tea Party has a lot of fascist qualities? I'm trying to think of any fascist movement that supports a peaceful and orderly change of government through the electoral process.
What has the Tea Party done to make liberals wet themselves so badly? They've organized people to vote in primaries and elections and held a bunch of protests. Ooohhh, scary!
Someone's father (syndalis, I think) wrote an article about the Tea Party and how it embodies fascist qualities, and it made a lot of sense. Fascism is extreme nationalism right? And what kind of messages does the Tea Party promote? Take back the country, 'true' Americans, extremely antagonistic attitudes to foreign relations. I'm not saying the entirety of the GOP swings to the Tea Party's tune, but a lot of the big players in the GOP do, and that's unfortunate. Fox News also promotes those things right there.
Great, now Republicans are, according to this thread, KKK members, terrorists, Nazis, and homosexual killers. Anything else you want to throw down the stupid tube?
I wish I was a moderator right now, I would be locking this thread NINE TIMES for being moronic.
Instead you could meet and disprove those statements, instead of making wide accusations.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The Tea Party has a lot of fascist qualities? I'm trying to think of any fascist movement that supports a peaceful and orderly change of government through the electoral process.
Well, there's the Nazi Party. Hitler and his party gained power through elections, after all.
Hi Phillishere, I'm Henroid. Let's be friends. 8->
Just to check: when conservative groups' lobbying causes a country to impose the death penalty on homosexuality, that doesn't count as "violence," right? Talking about how gay people and liberals are trying to destroy America through civil rights and universal health care doesn't either, right? And saying "give us what we want, or we'll blow up the world economy," that's not violence either, right?
1. Last I checked, that law was passed by the government of Uganda. I'm not really sure what some idiotic law in Africa has to do with the discussion of American politics.
That's a beaut of a post right there. Three links, two of which talk at length about GOP officials and operatives involved in the groups that are supporting the Ugandan laws, and you ignore them in order to ask this question. You don't rebut the accusations, or talk about how these are fringe members of the party. You just ignore them.
Great, now Republicans are, according to this thread, KKK members, terrorists, Nazis, and homosexual killers. Anything else you want to throw down the stupid tube?
I wish I was a moderator right now, I would be locking this thread NINE TIMES for being moronic.
Instead you could meet and disprove those statements, instead of making wide accusations.
No, the burden of proof is on someone who is flame baiting. You can't Godwin and then say "Prove me wrong!" The burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far, I have seen zero things that link the Republicans with the violent, deathly crimes of KKK members, terrorists, Nazis and homosexual killers. This is easily the biggest strawman arguments you can make, and you're not even attempting to hide how idiotic it is.
Great, now Republicans are, according to this thread, KKK members, terrorists, Nazis, and homosexual killers. Anything else you want to throw down the stupid tube?
I wish I was a moderator right now, I would be locking this thread NINE TIMES for being moronic.
Instead you could meet and disprove those statements, instead of making wide accusations.
No, the burden of proof is on someone who is flame baiting. You can't Godwin and then say "Prove me wrong!" The burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far, I have seen zero things that link the Republicans with the violent, deathly crimes of KKK members, terrorists, Nazis and homosexual killers. This is easily the biggest strawman arguments you can make, and you're not even attempting to hide how idiotic it is.
I haven't seen you putting anyone on the spot either by demanding proof... Just complaining that "we" criticize the GOP (and that "we" all share the exact mindset) and if you had the choice you would shut the thread down to stop us from doing so.
1. Last I checked, that law was passed by the government of Uganda. I'm not really sure what some idiotic law in Africa has to do with the discussion of American politics.
2. Nope. Saying bad things about your political opponents is not violence.
3. Nope, that's not violence, either.
Well, that law and the politicians behind it have gotten support from American churches:
Might be there's a local, U.S. angle to the story.
So, a bunch of Americans were involved in Ugandan politics. And the Ugandan government decided to pass a bone-headed law.
So what? What does that have to do with the GOP?
A bunch of American Republicans, spouting exactly the same sort of anti-homosexual rhetoric the Republican party uses in the U.S. (and that can be found in the Republican platform), funded by a Republican church, and with ties to the Republican party, convinced people in Uganda that homosexuals should be executed.
And you don't see what that has to do with the Republicans?
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Posts
I don't know if it's even applicable to call this new bloc of voters Republicans. I still think of Republicans as politically-oriented people who have policies and legislation on their mind.
The Teapers are only about vague philosophies and ideology unfounded in reality. They're basically the party of Is/Ought.
They're trying to bring the sexy back, and inflation rates and bond yields just aren't sexy to most.
About the political brinkmanship, the Dems need to stop being pussies about calling Pubs on their shit. Just because the Right uses emotional appeals to pass some reprehensible shit doesn't mean that making emotional appeals is using the Dark Side of the Force. There's absolutely nothing wrong with arguing liberal causes with honest emotional appeals. We need to start arguing that regressive Republican policies are wrong, not just in the 2+2=5 sense as we've been doing, but in the "this will kill people and kick your dog" sense.
Yes the hard-core facists will moan and scream and threaten race wars or whatever insanity, but they do that whenever a Dem sits in the big chair. We need to start associating the politicians who court these sort of people with their honestly anti-American beliefs. Demanding that an honestly elected politician step down without criminal charges is antidemocratic and anti-American, full stop. We need to stop pussy-footing around these issues, and stop letting these crazies shoot their mouths off without rebuttal.
The biggest issue in all this is that conservatism is becoming a religion to these people. "Reagan was awesome, the top 1% have our best interests in mind, free markets are good in all cases" aren't just political beliefs to these people, they're articles of faith. They believe them as much as they believe Jesus loves them, and there is a just god watching over us. Look at the anger that manifests among these people if you link Snopes, NPR, or anything save Fox. We don't get angry if you suggest we read a Fox article. We may poke fun at it, refute it, or roll our eyes, but red-faced rage is not a commonly seen emotion among liberals, Olbermann notwithstanding. I don't know how to get such people back from the brink, and that frustrates me endlessly.
Rigorous Scholarship
I think the idea that the Speaker of the House or the Senate Minority Leader would seriously entertain the idea of restraining an economic recovery in order to hamstring the President's reelection campaign to be pretty bizarre too, but here we are. If you bring a knife to a fistfight, do you really get to complain if the other guy pulls out a gun?
It's the fruit of the Southern Strategy. The GOP always had a core of those folks balanced out by sane actors and a ton of actual Republican liberals, but the party made huge gains by embracing the racist South/Midwest. The end result is that the racist/religious/xenophobic minority became the majority of the base. Now, they're just claiming leadership.
Filibustering a bill is not even in the same solar system as rounding up the opposition and ruling by decree. If Republican legislators are in fact horrible and having a negative effect on the country, the electorate is free to kick them out of office.
Rigorous Scholarship
You're forgetting that posters in this thread generally seem to believe that the electorate cannot make informed decisions because it is too stupid, or is evil. Their solution, apparently, is to be more deceptive, dishonest, and destructive in order to harness the moronic electorate and once they have power, they'll do benign things that everyone will love.
Because they are benign, and only have the people's interests at heart, and as soon as they have all the power and control they'll prove it. It's totally those other guys who are a bunch of maniac fascist destroyers.
perhaps in some attempt to make some sort of man of straw
Spool32, I worked retail for over a decade. People in general are either stupid (some of the time) or lazy (almost all of the time).
No, sending people to gulags would fall precisely in the category of "legal, if controversial", especially once you run it through the media. Remember when torture was a bad thing?
Oh, you think we are all conservative republicans.
Or "Second amendment remedies"...
You are talking to a guy who thinks the last political riot in the U.S. was the '68 Democratic convention. Outside of the not that subtle political dig, it shows a woeful ignorance of American history.
That wasn't even the last big political riot in 1968. It was just the biggest one to take place in front of the massed American media. That year.
I wish I was a moderator right now, I would be locking this thread NINE TIMES for being moronic.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
"But that's not what we meant!" And then they don't explain what phrases like that are suppose to mean. That or the explanation has nothing to do with the phrase. "TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY, OF COURSE!" Via the second amendment? "STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH."
1. Last I checked, that law was passed by the government of Uganda. I'm not really sure what some idiotic law in Africa has to do with the discussion of American politics.
2. Nope. Saying bad things about your political opponents is not violence.
3. Nope, that's not violence, either.
Rigorous Scholarship
Have all you special snowflake Republicans actually spent much time listening to your mates? The thing about spouting unbalanced, inflammatory rhetoric pretty much nonstop for a couple decades is that, over time, people actually start to believe you mean what you say.
The party embodies a lot of qualities of those things though, is the point. Let's not forget that the Tea Party, which I guess counts as a portion of the party, embodies a lot of fascist qualities (quite literally).
No, I would prefer that all political parties be composed of reasonable, decent people. I would prefer fair and honest discussions about issues. I would prefer that candidates do their homework to make sure that their ideas are actually workable. I would prefer that people are willing to explore the consequences of actions instead of handwaving them away if it looks unpleasant. However, this is not the case, and the Republicans are doing a lot more to keep it that way than the Democrats are. In order for The People to make good decisions, they need to have a good idea of what's going on and why, and a lot don't.
Well, that law and the politicians behind it have gotten support from American churches:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128491183
There are a lot of ties between these American churches and the GOP:
http://mobile.salon.com/politics/war_room/2011/05/11/uganda_republicans
And members of that church are active in Republican politics:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Linda-Meisenheimer-for-City-Council-North-Las-Vegas-Ward-2/201955589820994?sk=info
Might be there's a local, U.S. angle to the story.
What has the Tea Party done to make liberals wet themselves so badly? They've organized people to vote in primaries and elections and held a bunch of protests. Ooohhh, scary!
Rigorous Scholarship
First of all, this isn't like your household budget. But even if it were, the question would come down to "at what point do we not want to borrow $100 to save $500?" And the answer to that is "never."
Second, I am happy to discuss the wisdom of borrowing more. But what I'm not going to consider appropriate is doing it while one party is threatening to blow up the world economy if they don't get their way. That's not how this process is supposed to work, and the idea that a political party would actually stoop to that sort of low is pretty appalling.
Yeah, it's really unfair to establish PACs that lie to people, telling them things like "Barack Obama is a Muslim," or "Barack Obama and ACORN are practicing widespread voter fraud," or "liberals are traitors who are trying to destroy America," or...
You should really read the article in the OP and address those points, specifically, where you feel he's wrong about the Republicans being anti-democracy, instead of saying "they just aren't."
I was giving context to the article, and pointing out that the guy is making a declaration against interests.
First, the NY Times here.
Second, an article linked by the NY Times here: link.
[/quote]
Well, there's the Nazi Party. Hitler and his party gained power through elections, after all.
Well, there's the Nazi Party. Hitler and his party gained power through elections, after all.
One of the leading candidates for the Republican presidential candidacy suggested that we investigate Congress for un-American sentiments. A leading group of Republicans were pushing the idea that the sitting president is a Manchurian Candidate. There's significant circumstantial evidence that suggests that a Bush political operative not only engineered a corruption conviction against a former Democratic governor of Alabama (sending him to jail), but perhaps even rigged the election against him in the first place.
Not that I would ever endorse Thanatos's tactics, but dispatching one's political opponents in an underhanded and brutal way, or casting them as "the other" is not exactly unheard of.
So what? What does that have to do with the GOP?
Rigorous Scholarship
Someone's father (syndalis, I think) wrote an article about the Tea Party and how it embodies fascist qualities, and it made a lot of sense. Fascism is extreme nationalism right? And what kind of messages does the Tea Party promote? Take back the country, 'true' Americans, extremely antagonistic attitudes to foreign relations. I'm not saying the entirety of the GOP swings to the Tea Party's tune, but a lot of the big players in the GOP do, and that's unfortunate. Fox News also promotes those things right there.
Instead you could meet and disprove those statements, instead of making wide accusations.
Hi Phillishere, I'm Henroid. Let's be friends. 8->
You're right, those are less violence, more terrorism. I'll be more specific in my terminology in the future.
That's a beaut of a post right there. Three links, two of which talk at length about GOP officials and operatives involved in the groups that are supporting the Ugandan laws, and you ignore them in order to ask this question. You don't rebut the accusations, or talk about how these are fringe members of the party. You just ignore them.
Pretty much says it all, right there.
No, the burden of proof is on someone who is flame baiting. You can't Godwin and then say "Prove me wrong!" The burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far, I have seen zero things that link the Republicans with the violent, deathly crimes of KKK members, terrorists, Nazis and homosexual killers. This is easily the biggest strawman arguments you can make, and you're not even attempting to hide how idiotic it is.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
No. It is not fascist. It is in no way fascist.
It may be bad policy. It may be ineffective. But it does not, in any accepted outside of crazytown, meet any definition of fascism.
And, no, mandates to buy health or auto insurance don't meet the "corporation/state" definition of fascism, either.
I haven't seen you putting anyone on the spot either by demanding proof... Just complaining that "we" criticize the GOP (and that "we" all share the exact mindset) and if you had the choice you would shut the thread down to stop us from doing so.
And you don't see what that has to do with the Republicans?
I'm not convinced you understand what it means to be a fascist.