Link to tv segment here.
So, according to an elected official, republican Bob Marshall, children with disabilities are born like that because of the wrath of god over abortion and, based on that, state support for health clinics should be removed.
Also, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has used an executive order to cut text that banned discrimination against state workers for their sexual orientation.
Is this mindset acceptable in US politics in 2010?
Is this mindset acceptable in US politics in 2010?
Acceptable to whom? To secular pro-abortion people like me? I'd say it wasn't acceptable in any nation's politics at any time in all of history.
To large portions of the voting populace? Acceptable is an understatement. This kind of thing can be mandatory and wildly popular.
|
Most people use the term "pro-choice" because it sounds less bloodthirsty and doesn't remind people as much that an inconvenient life is involved. But hey, if you're pro-abortion that's cool, too.
As for the Republican mentioned, yeah he sounds a little too... unbalanced. I'd vote for the other guy next time, unless they supported a public option.
I just thank god for Jon Stewart.
Thank the gods Beck is such a flaming idiot, otherwise the Daily show would have been canceled like two weeks after Bush left office for lack of material.
Link to tv segment here.
So, according to an elected official, republican Bob Marshall, children with disabilities are born like that because of the wrath of god over abortion and, based on that, state support for health clinics should be removed.
Also, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has used an executive order to cut text that banned discrimination against state workers for their sexual orientation.Is this mindset acceptable in US politics in 2010?
What is it with these Bobs? They're giving Roberts a bad name.
On the political tip, I have trouble seeing these guys as representatives of Republicans as a whole. I guess my time in the "What Conservatives Think" thread has helped.
Most people use the term "pro-choice" because it sounds less bloodthirsty and doesn't remind people as much that an inconvenient life is involved. But hey, if you're pro-abortion that's cool, too.
I'm both. The availability of abortion on demand is a positive good in my book, not just the best of a bad situation or some kind of moral compromise.
Most people use the term "pro-choice" because it sounds less bloodthirsty and doesn't remind people as much that an inconvenient life is involved. But hey, if you're pro-abortion that's cool, too.
As opposed to all the pro-life people who will scream and shout about "baby-killers" (even if what might be removed is just a cluster of cells) and so on, while after the baby is born they don't seem to care what happens to it and its mother? All the while also supporting the death sentence and war in foreign nations.
I have yet to meet a pro-choice person who doesn't wish that abortion wasn't necessary, they just want the option to be available if that's the hard decision that has to be made (myself included). That's why it's called pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
Is this mindset acceptable in US politics in 2010?Acceptable to whom? To secular pro-abortion people like me? I'd say it wasn't acceptable in any nation's politics at any time in all of history.
To large portions of the voting populace? Acceptable is an understatement. This kind of thing can be mandatory and wildly popular.
Acceptable to anyone. Is it okay to base regular politics and how they affect large parts of the population on religious belief? Would any religious belief be okay or just Christian doctrines?
Does it sit okay with everyone, regardless of political affiliation, to cut back on some rather basic rights for a part of the population, rights which were already in the books, because of religious beliefs?Is it okay to move backwards in how far the country has progressed?
IS it a move backwards, if not why?
(all of the above are general questions to the entire thread)
|
Most people use the term "pro-choice" because it sounds less bloodthirsty and doesn't remind people as much that an inconvenient life is involved. But hey, if you're pro-abortion that's cool, too.As opposed to all the pro-life people who will scream and shout about "baby-killers" (even if what might be removed is just a cluster of cells) and so on, while after the baby is born they don't seem to care what happens to it and its mother? All the while also supporting the death sentence and war in foreign nations.
I have yet to meet a pro-choice person who doesn't wish that abortion wasn't necessary, they just want the option to be available if that's the hard decision that has to be made (myself included). That's why it's called pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
What's worse protecting innocent uborn children and punishing those who murder and rape with death sentances.... or killing innocent unborn and letting vile criminals live
I'd rather this thread not turn into a political shouting match. Keep things civil.
Don't post angry, don't post 'us vs. them' arguments, and don't be a jerk.
|
|
I'd rather this thread not turn into a political shouting match. Keep things civil.
Don't post angry, don't post 'us vs. them' arguments, and don't be a jerk.
My advice is just to lock it, Ross.
Abortion is the worst-case controversy: there is no possible compromise, and both sides think the other side is morally bankrupt.
Is it okay to base regular politics and how they affect large parts of the population on religious belief?
Depends -- in a theocracy, it's not only okay, it's obligatory. There are many, many people in the U.S., and in some parts a majority, who fervently wish that were the case here. So they rewrite their state constitutions to be closer in line with what they interpret scripture to imply (as Huckabee said we should do with the U.S. constitution). If enough of those provisions get struck down at the federal level, then I predict a coalition of "God-fearing" states will eventually try to secede from the U.S. (with its "liberal atheist activist judiciary") to form the Theocratic States of America.
Note: Previous off-topic post deleted.
Actual footage of Bob Marshall's speech.
I'd rather this thread not turn into a political shouting match. Keep things civil.
Don't post angry, don't post 'us vs. them' arguments, and don't be a jerk.
My advice is just to lock it, Ross.
Abortion is the worst-case controversy: there is no possible compromise, and both sides think the other side is morally bankrupt.
I'd also like this to not devolve into a pro-/anti-abortion argument. If anyone is interested in that, there has already been a long discussion about that before, just search the site for all the sides weighing in on that.
I know I responded above to a question about abortion, which I probably shouldn't have in hindsight.I'm more curious about the aspects of acceptance when it comes to religious beliefs affecting politics in the US in 2010 qua the questions I posed above.
Also, whether it's acceptable to base politics on some religious beliefs but not others and if it's okay to impose these politics on people who might not share the same religious beliefs.
Should politicians work for the common good of ALL people or just those who voted for them and thus might agree with them on issues that shouldn't necessary have anything to do with politics (such as religious beliefs).?
I'd rather this thread not turn into a political shouting match. Keep things civil.
Don't post angry, don't post 'us vs. them' arguments, and don't be a jerk.
My advice is just to lock it, Ross.
Abortion is the worst-case controversy: there is no possible compromise, and both sides think the other side is morally bankrupt.
+10000.
Isn't a simple argument of separation of church and state?
Which it looks to have failed in this case.
Though I am a proponent of laïcité myself.
|
What's worse protecting innocent uborn children and punishing those who murder and rape with death sentances.... or killing innocent unborn and letting vile criminals live
I'd prefer to let the woman make the decision as to whether she could take care of the child, and punish those who murder and rape with death sentences as well. There's no reason why the two have to be mutually exclusive.
|
|
I'd rather this thread not turn into a political shouting match. Keep things civil.
Don't post angry, don't post 'us vs. them' arguments, and don't be a jerk.
My advice is just to lock it, Ross.
Abortion is the worst-case controversy: there is no possible compromise, and both sides think the other side is morally bankrupt.
That sounds a little too much like giving up for my liking.
I don't understand this vicarious punishment thing. Punishing one person to make another person's life hell being ethically acceptable seems like it shouldn't survive six minutes of critical thought.
You sin, so your children are born with handicaps. You still have the possibility of living a healthy life to old age, but your children, who might grow up to be paragons of godly virtue, will suffer. How does anyone countenance such a god with clean conscience?
|
|
What's worse protecting innocent uborn children and punishing those who murder and rape with death sentances.... or killing innocent unborn and letting vile criminals liveI'd prefer to let the woman make the decision as to whether she could take care of the child, and punish those who murder and rape with death sentences as well. There's no reason why the two have to be mutually exclusive.
Well, that's a much more consistent viewpoint than many on either side of this debate have.
Either life is sacred or it isn't. Period. And, whatever side you're on, the next time someone tells me a two month old fetus isn't a person can look at the 9 week sonogram on my phone and explain how that is a blastoid...
Also, whether it's acceptable to base politics on some religious beliefs but not others and if it's okay to impose these politics on people who might not share the same religious beliefs.
Should politicians work for the common good of ALL people or just those who voted for them and thus might agree with them on issues that shouldn't necessary have anything to do with politics (such as religious beliefs).?
It still depends on who you ask. Substantial numbers of Americans would say that basing policy on their religious beliefs is obligatory. They'll even tell you that the state was intended to be and can only legitimately function as a kind of high priest. Anything else is persecution. That this works to poison the common good and generally curb stomp anyone who disagrees with their religion isn't an unfortunate consequence, but a desired outcome. (In fact by and large it's the desired outcome.) It's their country; the rest of us are just living here.
As for me, I say none of that is acceptable.
Though I am a proponent of laïcité myself.
America could use a hell of a lot more laïcité.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Religious beliefs inform ethics. Ethics informs politics. Saying that religious beliefs shouldn't affect policy is like saying philosophy shouldn't inform policy. The real question is not if, but how, and to what extent... and it isn't a spurious question.
Religious beliefs inform ethics.
Not necessarily. Nor is any kind of religious belief required to develop ethical opinions.
|
|
Religious beliefs inform ethics.Not necessarily. Nor is any kind of religious belief required to develop ethical opinions.
For example: L. Aron Nelson on the evolution of morality.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
For example: L. Aron Nelson on the evolution of morality.Religious beliefs inform ethics.Not necessarily. Nor is any kind of religious belief required to develop ethical opinions.
Roger. I said that religious beliefs inform ethics, not that all ethics are based on religious beliefs. Perhaps I unintentionally left that ambiguous. What I mean is that if you are religious, your ethics are informed by your religious beliefs. If you are not religious, your ethics are informed by your lack of religious beliefs.
|
Link to tv segment here.
So, according to an elected official, republican Bob Marshall, children with disabilities are born like that because of the wrath of god over abortion and, based on that, state support for health clinics should be removed.
Also, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has used an executive order to cut text that banned discrimination against state workers for their sexual orientation.Is this mindset acceptable in US politics in 2010?
What is it with these Bobs? They're giving Roberts a bad name.
On the political tip, I have trouble seeing these guys as representatives of Republicans as a whole. I guess my time in the "What Conservatives Think" thread has helped.
I ain't touching this except to say that tem guys is wacky.
Thank the gods Beck is such a flaming idiot, otherwise the Daily show would have been canceled like two weeks after Bush left office for lack of material.I just thank god for Jon Stewart.
Doubtful. Stupidity in politics and elsewhere is nonpartisan and prolific. If he wants to, Jon can keep that show going until he's in adult diapers.
|
|
Is it okay to base regular politics and how they affect large parts of the population on religious belief?Depends -- in a theocracy, it's not only okay, it's obligatory. There are many, many people in the U.S., and in some parts a majority, who fervently wish that were the case here. So they rewrite their state constitutions to be closer in line with what they interpret scripture to imply (as Huckabee said we should do with the U.S. constitution). If enough of those provisions get struck down at the federal level, then I predict a coalition of "God-fearing" states will eventually try to secede from the U.S. (with its "liberal atheist activist judiciary") to form the Theocratic States of America.
Note: Previous off-topic post deleted.
Ummmm......... you don't want the US to become a theocracy it cannot bode well. I say this only because of the present theocracies and how wildly popular they are such as Iran..........
It's amazing what you can do with an argument when you set up the other guy to be benighted, stupid and to hold opinions he doesn't hold.
Take a tiny and offbeat minority, say that anyone who holds an opinion different from yours agrees with that minority and voila! All your opponents are not just idiots, but monsters.
Frankly, as a Virginian and a conservative, I think this politician is an idiot. But not I'm not much of a fan of people who think that's what conservatives are like, nor those who think guys like that are in the majority.
Doubtful. Stupidity in politics and elsewhere is nonpartisan and prolific. If he wants to, Jon can keep that show going until he's in adult diapers.Thank the gods Beck is such a flaming idiot, otherwise the Daily show would have been canceled like two weeks after Bush left office for lack of material.I just thank god for Jon Stewart.
Agreed. And it's nice that he (kinda) turned his guns back on the Democrats as well. I'd like more of that. Republicans/conservatives are easy targets, but turnabout is fair play.
Zo
|
|
It's amazing what you can do with an argument when you set up the other guy to be benighted, stupid and to hold opinions he doesn't hold.
Take a tiny and offbeat minority, say that anyone who holds an opinion different from yours agrees with that minority and voila! All your opponents are not just idiots, but monsters.
Frankly, as a Virginian and a conservative, I think this politician is an idiot. But not I'm not much of a fan of people who think that's what conservatives are like, nor those who think guys like that are in the majority.
+1
Speaking as the parent of a Disabled Child I'd like to damn this guys soul to whatever hell he happens to believe in..
I ain't touching this except to say that tem guys is wacky.Link to tv segment here.
So, according to an elected official, republican Bob Marshall, children with disabilities are born like that because of the wrath of god over abortion and, based on that, state support for health clinics should be removed.
Also, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has used an executive order to cut text that banned discrimination against state workers for their sexual orientation.Is this mindset acceptable in US politics in 2010?
What is it with these Bobs? They're giving Roberts a bad name.
On the political tip, I have trouble seeing these guys as representatives of Republicans as a whole. I guess my time in the "What Conservatives Think" thread has helped.
It took a few days, but I knew it would work!
In a more serious vein, this could be why the offbeat minority thing works. Not to be too cheesy, but we all know the saying of evil(or in this case, astonishing stupidity) succeeding and good men finding better things to do than stop it.
|
|
Roger. I said that religious beliefs inform ethics, not that all ethics are based on religious beliefs. Perhaps I unintentionally left that ambiguous. What I mean is that if you are religious, your ethics are informed by your religious beliefs. If you are not religious, your ethics are informed by your lack of religious beliefs.For example: L. Aron Nelson on the evolution of morality.Religious beliefs inform ethics.Not necessarily. Nor is any kind of religious belief required to develop ethical opinions.
Cool. It was a little ambiguous, but we're on the level know.
|
|
In a more serious vein, this could be why the offbeat minority thing works. Not to be too cheesy, but we all know the saying of evil(or in this case, astonishing stupidity) succeeding and good men finding better things to do than stop it.
Well the biggest thing is that often times the political opponents of conservatiives hold these nutcases up an when mainstream, rational conservatives try to say that these people don't represent wat the mojority of what us believe we ae told "Yeah right, they do to." Then when wepoint out to similarly radical an ridiculous statemets by members of the left wng we are told that we don't know what we are talking about and that they don't represent the movemet. Eventually, as this gets perpetuated in chatrooms, messageboards, and in the political meda the default position becomes that liberals are rational and caring and conservatives are nuts and it becomes more difficult every day for conservatives who are not on the radical fringe to have their voices heard simply becaue we become portrayed as the minority in our movement.
|
|
Take the results of the CPAC poll fo example. If you remove Ron Paul who really isn't a conservative because of his positions, Mt Romney was the clear winner of the straw poll for the next Republican candidate. Mitt Romney is fiscally conservative and socially moderate. He has a buisness bckground and is not really an ideaologe like some of the other candidates in the poll. For example, while stateing a personal opposition to gay marriage he also issued an executive order that said that any county clerk who refused to issue marriage liscences to gay couples would lose their job as long as gay marriage was the law in Massachussets. This is the type of candidate I would like to see more of in both parties, one who acknowledges his or her own personal position and works to change the law to fit that position, but also pushes for enforcement of the law so long as it is the law.
Well the biggest thing is that often times the political opponents of conservatiives hold these nutcases up an when mainstream, rational conservatives try to say that these people don't represent wat the mojority of what us believe we ae told "Yeah right, they do to." Then when wepoint out to similarly radical an ridiculous statemets by members of the left wng we are told that we don't know what we are talking about and that they don't represent the movemet. Eventually, as this gets perpetuated in chatrooms, messageboards, and in the political meda the default position becomes that liberals are rational and caring and conservatives are nuts and it becomes more difficult every day for conservatives who are not on the radical fringe to have their voices heard simply becaue we become portrayed as the minority in our movement.
In a more serious vein, this could be why the offbeat minority thing works. Not to be too cheesy, but we all know the saying of evil(or in this case, astonishing stupidity) succeeding and good men finding better things to do than stop it.
Well, I guess the question is on HOW to fight it then. The way things are going right now, conservatives are sounding more and more insane(even though they aren't) and liberals are sounding more and more like the sole voice of reason(even though they aren't). How would you suggest changing the default position then? And don't give me the old "I don't have all the answers" thing. We're all too old- or maybe too young- for that kind of reasoning. What needs to change?
{EDIT} Pseudo-ninjad...but go into more detail.
|
|
I know it sounds like copout, but I really don't know how we change the status quo. One thing is that we need to change the hearts and minds of the gakeepers, the peple who control the political media. Take an episode of Meet the Press a few weeks ago. On their political roundtable, they had the founder of the Daily Kos, a far left leaning website, the former head of the Democratic National Commitee, a former spokesperson for President Bill Cllinton and a former aide to Sen. Strom Thurmand. So before the discussion even begins, thedeck is alreay stacked against the Republicans, who re the traditional home of conservatives in America.
On the other hand, after the President's heath care summit last week, the reports were how reasonable and not crazy the Republicans and their proposals sounded. People got to hear what conservatives have to say from their own mouth, without the filter of a gatekeeper, they seem to be much more open to what conservatives have to say then they do when they are having wat they hear filtered by a third party.
I know it sounds like copout, but I really don't know how we change the status quo. One thing is that we need to change the hearts and minds of the gakeepers, the peple who control the political media. Take an episode of Meet the Press a few weeks ago. On their political roundtable, they had the founder of the Daily Kos, a far left leaning website, the former head of the Democratic National Commitee, a former spokesperson for President Bill Cllinton and a former aide to Sen. Strom Thurmand. So before the discussion even begins, thedeck is alreay stacked against the Republicans, who re the traditional home of conservatives in America.
On the other hand, after the President's heath care summit last week, the reports were how reasonable and not crazy the Republicans and their proposals sounded. People got to hear what conservatives have to say from their own mouth, without the filter of a gatekeeper, they seem to be much more open to what conservatives have to say then they do when they are having wat they hear filtered by a third party.
Could it all come down to housekeeping? Are there people who should be kicked out of their own party? A stupid question, I'm sure, but I'm being dead serious about this. Should there be some kind of test or qualifer/test/profiling before someone can PROFESSIONALLY call themselves a Democrat or Republican? Should it be an honor instead of a job? This is something those clamoring for deadly serious term limits have been talking about for years.
|
|
Could it all come down to housekeeping? Are there people who should be kicked out of their own party? A stupid question, I'm sure, but I'm being dead serious about this. Should there be some kind of test or qualifer/test/profiling before someone can PROFESSIONALLY call themselves a Democrat or Republican? Should it be an honor instead of a job? This is something those clamoring for deadly serious term limits have been talking about for years.I know it sounds like copout, but I really don't know how we change the status quo. One thing is that we need to change the hearts and minds of the gakeepers, the peple who control the political media. Take an episode of Meet the Press a few weeks ago. On their political roundtable, they had the founder of the Daily Kos, a far left leaning website, the former head of the Democratic National Commitee, a former spokesperson for President Bill Cllinton and a former aide to Sen. Strom Thurmand. So before the discussion even begins, thedeck is alreay stacked against the Republicans, who re the traditional home of conservatives in America.
On the other hand, after the President's heath care summit last week, the reports were how reasonable and not crazy the Republicans and their proposals sounded. People got to hear what conservatives have to say from their own mouth, without the filter of a gatekeeper, they seem to be much more open to what conservatives have to say then they do when they are having wat they hear filtered by a third party.
That is apossibility to look at. The problem then becomes who sets the standard for who can be called a Republican or a Democrat? For example, in 2006 Democrats actively recruited conservatives to run as Democrats in order to win seats that were traditionally held by Republicans. Now it has come back to bite them because those same "Blue Dog Democrats" are the ones blocking the leaderships agenda in many cases.
Edit: Also, I remember when Howard Dean was elected head of the Democratic National Commitee. The head of the Kentucky Democratic Comittee publicly stated that she felt that she would have a hard time supporting Gov. Dean as the leader of the party as Democrats in her state were more conservative then Republicans in states like California or New York.
That is apossibility to look at. The problem then becomes who sets the standard for who can be called a Republican or a Democrat? For example, in 2006 Democrats actively recruited conservatives to run as Democrats in order to win seats that were traditionally held by Republicans. Now it has come back to bite them because those same "Blue Dog Democrats" are the ones blocking the leaderships agenda in many cases.Could it all come down to housekeeping? Are there people who should be kicked out of their own party? A stupid question, I'm sure, but I'm being dead serious about this. Should there be some kind of test or qualifer/test/profiling before someone can PROFESSIONALLY call themselves a Democrat or Republican? Should it be an honor instead of a job? This is something those clamoring for deadly serious term limits have been talking about for years.I know it sounds like copout, but I really don't know how we change the status quo. One thing is that we need to change the hearts and minds of the gakeepers, the peple who control the political media. Take an episode of Meet the Press a few weeks ago. On their political roundtable, they had the founder of the Daily Kos, a far left leaning website, the former head of the Democratic National Commitee, a former spokesperson for President Bill Cllinton and a former aide to Sen. Strom Thurmand. So before the discussion even begins, thedeck is alreay stacked against the Republicans, who re the traditional home of conservatives in America.
On the other hand, after the President's heath care summit last week, the reports were how reasonable and not crazy the Republicans and their proposals sounded. People got to hear what conservatives have to say from their own mouth, without the filter of a gatekeeper, they seem to be much more open to what conservatives have to say then they do when they are having wat they hear filtered by a third party.
Actually, it's not that hard. Treat it like any other organization, with rules and bylaws. If 1%ers can do it, parties that have been in existence for hundreds of years can. The only thing I WOULDN'T do is have some kind of stipulation saying that they will vote a certain way all the time, or maybe create some kind of limitation on how many times they can vote against their party line. I'd DEFINITELY include a requirement for someone to make over 90% of sessions for whatever their position is.
Is this mindset acceptable in US politics in 2010?
All mindsets are acceptable in US politics. It's within their First Amendment rights to believe adn say any damnfool thing they want to. I personally think they're monstrous for saying it, and as the father of a massively-handicapped daughter I'd love to punch that jackass for saying it, but it is his right.
You gotta take the chaff with the wheat. I also believe that 'Birthers' and 'Truthers' have the right to say whatever they want. I also have the right to call them deluded crank cases.
Could it all come down to housekeeping? Are there people who should be kicked out of their own party? A stupid question, I'm sure, but I'm being dead serious about this. Should there be some kind of test or qualifer/test/profiling before someone can PROFESSIONALLY call themselves a Democrat or Republican? Should it be an honor instead of a job?
The Texas Republican Party is clear on the matter; the 2008 platform, for example, includes the following:
So, in Texas at least, it's clear that the "litmus test" for Texas Republicans primarily involves aggressive affirmation of "Judeo-Christian Principles," with most other stuff taking a back seat to that. Under a "party litmus test" plan, any socially moderate fiscal conservative would fail on most of the points above, and hence be booted out of the Republican party in Texas.
Texas Republicans are very keen on describing themselves as "conservative," but for the most part they use the term to mean "socially Biblical." I'm a fiscal conservative myself (socially liberal), so that leaves me with nothing at all in common with these guys.
Could it all come down to housekeeping? Are there people who should be kicked out of their own party? A stupid question, I'm sure, but I'm being dead serious about this. Should there be some kind of test or qualifer/test/profiling before someone can PROFESSIONALLY call themselves a Democrat or Republican? Should it be an honor instead of a job?The Texas Republican Party is clear on the matter; the 2008 platform, for example, includes the following:
"We affirm that the public acknowledgment of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength. We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state."
"Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God."
"Our policy [on Israel] is based on God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise."
"We believe that human life is sacred, created in the image of God. Life begins at the moment of fertilization and ends at the point of natural death."
"We also demand that the National Motto 'In God We Trust' and National Anthem be protected from legislative and judicial attack."
"We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue."
"Judeo-Christian Nation – As America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice." So, in Texas at least, it's clear that the "litmus test" for Texas Republicans primarily involves aggressive affirmation of "Judeo-Christian Principles," with most other stuff taking a back seat to that. Under a "party litmus test" plan, any socially moderate fiscal conservative would fail on most of the points above, and hence be booted out of the Republican party in Texas.
Kirth, when will you stop being awesome? Seriously. It's getting annoying. ;-)
As usual, thanks for the information. A bit of a straitjacket, but then again, I'm liberal. I want to see something like this hammered out for both parties themselves, not just in one state. I would also like to see some kind of agreement between the party as an entity and the state as an entity, so both are respected. One shouldn't get in trouble for holding up the tenets of their party and not the tenets of their state...or maybe that should be the other way around? I dunno. Help me out here.
|
|
*sigh* I wish people would stop trying to label people. Putting people into there little boxes, wether it be ethnic group, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion. Then stereotype each little group. You'll find most people don't belong into any preconceived stereotypes put there. I've said it before and I will say it again, if people took a second to think and try to gain a little bit of empathy toward who you see as your opposition, just try to see why they believe the way they do then maybe, just maybe we might stop all this infantile fighting you see on the C-span grown adults slinging insults like children on the playground. Seriously I say we vote for someone who will actually take the time and think.
Well the biggest thing is that often times the political opponents of conservatiives hold these nutcases up an when mainstream, rational conservatives try to say that these people don't represent wat the mojority of what us believe we ae told "Yeah right, they do to." Then when wepoint out to similarly radical an ridiculous statemets by members of the left wng we are told that we don't know what we are talking about and that they don't represent the movemet. Eventually, as this gets perpetuated in chatrooms, messageboards, and in the political meda the default position becomes that liberals are rational and caring and conservatives are nuts and it becomes more difficult every day for conservatives who are not on the radical fringe to have their voices heard simply becaue we become portrayed as the minority in our movement.
This is probably because the democrats have generally moved their candidates and politics toward the center. So its the further left branches that feel left out. Hence groups like Democracy Now spend much of their time criticizing Obama because they feel he failed to implement any of the lefts agenda.
Compare and contrast that to the conservatives who have consistently found themselves looking to their more radical elements and taking these into the core of the party.
When one gets right down to it you don't find many extremists on the left in elected positions. I'd surprised if one could find a single elected official who stated that his hero was Lenin.