The Seattle International Film Festival featured a documentary on this subject called "The Revisionaries" this year. It's very even-handed, and also very, well, I dunno. I found it really unsettling, but maybe you think it's a great thing.
Anyway, the movie is very much worth watching regardless of your politics. This is a very, very interesting issue, and this movie does a great job capturing the various sides of the issue, and profiling the various key players involved.
Interesting. Thank you.
I'm not an American, so my knowledge of the particulars is probably not as good as some you in this thread. That said, I'm wondering what evidence there is to support this claim that the Democrats are seeking similar magnitude "every benighted fever-dream the fundies could cook up". I see the phrase that "both sides are the same", but what I've observed really doesn't seem to support that claim.Look at Obama's actual policies -- not what he SAID he'd do in speeches, but what he's ACTUALLY encouraged or allowed to pass since he's been in office:
The National Defense Authorization Act passes with a lame comment of "Well, I know this makes me a virtual dictator in contravention of the entire Constitution, but I probably won't use most of it." But Guantanamo Bay is still open, and the use of drones by the president to assassinate U.S. citizens goes unremarked.
Funneling of tax dollars to banks and other large corporations continues to increase, at the expense of the middle class.
Funding for faith-based initiatives continues to increase exponentially, while the war against female reproductive freedom continues to ramp up.
The "War on Drugs" -- a transparent ploy to fuel the for-profit prison insustry with more "clients" -- is pushed as relentlessly by Democrats as it ever has been by Republicans: e.g.. Do I really need to go on?
Another vote for more info here. That said, I agree with the War on Drugs thing.
The Seattle International Film Festival featured a documentary on this subject called "The Revisionaries" this year. It's very even-handed, and also very, well, I dunno. I found it really unsettling, but maybe you think it's a great thing.
Anyway, the movie is very much worth watching regardless of your politics. This is a very, very interesting issue, and this movie does a great job capturing the various sides of the issue, and profiling the various key players involved.
Those are some really nice comfy looking chairs...
|
Interesting. Thank you.The Seattle International Film Festival featured a documentary on this subject called "The Revisionaries" this year. It's very even-handed, and also very, well, I dunno. I found it really unsettling, but maybe you think it's a great thing.
Anyway, the movie is very much worth watching regardless of your politics. This is a very, very interesting issue, and this movie does a great job capturing the various sides of the issue, and profiling the various key players involved.
I am sure it is as fact filled as any other documentary out there right now. As fact filled as any Michael Moore or Ben Stein film.
Wow CJ... I am amazed. Usually you don't have the fangs out that strongly. I will take Eric at his word that the film is even-handed until I see otherwise. I actually think that revisionism occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. Personally, I thought Reagan was a mediocre president, at best. The conservative agenda has turned him into a borderline messiah. The same can be said for Bill Clinton and the liberal left agenda.
I am sure it is as fact filled as any other documentary out there right now. As fact filled as any Michael Moore or Ben Stein film.
Maybe watch the trailer? Maybe?
While I agree with you Jeff, I have a hard time believing that too many democrats in public office would openly say this right now... Hence the revisionism.
The Seattle International Film Festival featured a documentary on this subject called "The Revisionaries" this year. It's very even-handed, and also very, well, I dunno. I found it really unsettling, but maybe you think it's a great thing.
Anyway, the movie is very much worth watching regardless of your politics. This is a very, very interesting issue, and this movie does a great job capturing the various sides of the issue, and profiling the various key players involved.
Hey, that looks really cool.
I know Paizo staff are usually pretty reticent to participate in OT discussions in any meaningful way, and it's not surprising considering how quickly they can turn toxic. But thanks, I'm totally going to check that movie out now.
Seen the movie not impressed.Maybe watch the trailer? Maybe?
I am sure it is as fact filled as any other documentary out there right now. As fact filled as any Michael Moore or Ben Stein film.
Ok then. Well why don't you give us a critique?
|
|
Wow CJ... I am amazed. Usually you don't have the fangs out that strongly. I will take Eric at his word that the film is even-handed until I see otherwise. I actually think that revisionism occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. Personally, I thought Reagan was a mediocre president, at best. The conservative agenda has turned him into a borderline messiah. The same can be said for Bill Clinton and the liberal left agenda.
Well I honestly want a fun and even handed message board. I find these threads detract from them, and I can't seem to hide them fast enough. the movie is not as bad as my initial post makes out, still not a fan. Watch it yourself with an open mind and make up your own opinion.
I liked Reagan, he was a good president, not a great one. I did not care for Clinton, even though I voted for him, however he is not the villain some loud subsets of the repubs try to make him out.
My other post. Some days I think people are on too many medications, or need to be, hard to be sure with some posts.
Could be worse though, it could be Kansas, where we have members from Fred Phelps church trying to get control of the Topeka school board. I am so glad I am not in that insane city.
:O
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we talking about Michael Moore movies and not about a state party openly calling for he repeal of the voting rights act? One is a filmmaker who represents oly himself, the other is a political party running the state that, historically, was second only to Mississipi in total number of lynchings. There is no equivelency between these two things.
Could be worse though, it could be Kansas, where we have members from Fred Phelps church trying to get control of the Topeka school board. I am so glad I am not in that insane city.:O
I have CJ on ignore, but since he was quoted, here's the platform.
We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to
the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that
have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should
“family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal
entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally,
we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or
belief in traditional values.
That sounds exactly like what Phelps himself would write, if you take out his favorite slur and some profanity.
Seen the movie not impressed.Maybe watch the trailer? Maybe?
I am sure it is as fact filled as any other documentary out there right now. As fact filled as any Michael Moore or Ben Stein film.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm mildly familiar with the topic.
What exactly did they get wrong?
I have seen the committee member that they focus on speak. He said that scientists shouldn't be trusted to tell the rest of us anything about science. He thought experts shouldn't be trusted any more than non-experts.
I'm paraphrasing from memory, but essentially those were his words. He explicitly said he doesn't trust experts on the issue of evolution, but instead trusts his own intuition.
I'm sorry, but when people denigrate science, if they don't immediately turn in their cellphones, car keys, and other modern technologies, they are talking out their ass. When they want to try and force that viewpoint on the rest of us, they do not deserve my respect.
The Rebublican's in Texas aren't outwardly against critical thinking, just having a school teach it instead of keeping those sorts of lessons within the home.
It's news to me that American Housholds contain such lessons. Growing up my family thought I came from a different dimension.
I have CJ on ignore, but since he was quoted, here's the platform.
That sounds exactly like what Phelps himself would write, if you take out his favorite slur and some profanity.
We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to
the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that
have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should
“family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal
entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally,
we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or
belief in traditional values.
Like I said earlier:
That's not what they're opposing. They're opposing the kids finding out that gays are nice people too (heck, maybe even that they exist) and that not everyone agrees with their superior Christian "morals."
It really seems to boil down to that.
War on reproduction?? Child birth being treated as a disease you mean?
well, if i had a ten pound growth on my stomach for 9 months I'd probably want to get it looked at eventually...
I will say this about the Phelps clan, they are good lawyers. How many lawyers do you know that have gone to the Supreme Court and won?
I find them as human beings as grotesque, but no one can honestly say they are not accomplished as lawyers.
Technically, they don't want the kids to be stupid -- just ignorant. :P
Technically, they don't want the kids to be stupid -- just ignorant. :P
Well, if they're going for rote memorization to past the tests, that would be stupid but not ignorant.
The irony here is that many of the defenders of faith seem to have none themselves.That's not what they're opposing. They're opposing the kids finding out that gays are nice people too (heck, maybe even that they exist) and that not everyone agrees with their superior Christian "morals."
It really seems to boil down to that.
This seems like a pretty popular rallying cry for a couple people around here. The fact that you aren't alone in saying this.... Proves you are wrong, because there are people trying to defend Christianity.
As an atheist, I will defend your right to believe what you want and gather in buildings to share your beliefs with others.
I will not defend you when you try and impose those beliefs on me and others. If you want to tell me why a law should be a certain way, or what should be taught in public schools, don't use your religion to justify it.
Christians represent the majority in this country. They also control a majority of the wealth and elected offices, appointed offices, and there are already numerous laws protecting people from religious discrimination. Asking you to stop shoving your religion in my face is not discrimination, it's asking you to be polite and considerate of others.
Remembering Ray Mummert again: "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
Well yeah, they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, but seriously blaming Obama for the War on Drugs? Sure he hasn't stopped it, but did he ever claim he would? Did anyone thing he would?
Not only hasn't stopped it, but ramped it up considerably. Gotta fill those prisons, you know. I don't blame him for instituting it in the first place -- but when he continues the Republican stance 100%, I find that worth pointing out.
Who ended DADT?
The guy who needed more troops for his eternal occupation of the Middle East. Afghanistan continues to worsen (more U.S. fatalities have occurred in 2010-2012 than all the years there previously), with no sign of us ever leaving. Our troops moved from Iraq to Kuwait, but are still there. And Obama couldn't wait to get us into Yemen and Libya as well. And of course, invasions of Pakistan and/or Iran "are not off the table."
And Obama couldn't wait to get us into Yemen and Libya as well. And of course, invasions of Pakistan and/or Iran "are not off the table."
Um there is a bit of difference between what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and what happened with Libya. You'll notice the distinct lack of USA troops in Libya for starters. Also we haven't taken invasions of a lot of places off the table, I mean is stating 'hey we should outright state we aren't going to do something' a position you want to find yourself defending?
I agree, but seriously blaming Obama for the War on Drugs? Sure he hasn't stopped it, but did he ever claim he would? Did anyone thing he would?Not only hasn't stopped it, but ramped it up considerably. Gotta fill those prisons, you know. I don't blame him for instituting it in the first place -- but when he continues the Republican stance 100%, I find that worth pointing out.
Not saying you're wrong, but what real leeway does he have? He's the head of the executive branch. Would it be responsible for him to selectively enforce the law? Personally I think he should, but it nonetheless sets a dangerous precedent.
AMiB
Raw Milk is actually a growing movement with support from small farm communities, "all natural" proponents, and nutters (may be some overlap in groups). I find it more sane than the anti-vaxination movement (which is just nutters). At least it has some valid arguements (destabalizing protiens, many microbes are good for you, almost no major food outbreaks historically from it). But its limitted scale is all that prevents a major foodpoisoning outbreak.
Hey um. Has anyone actually read all of this completely insane document? It claims that the Texan Republican Party wants to repeal the minimum wage, institute the economic policy of the 1932 Republican Party (you know, Herbert Hoover's platform), promote corporal punishment in public schools, legalize and promote the selling of raw milk, banning sodomy, move back to the gold standard, phase out ESL education, etc. It's a howler, beginning to end.
These, however, are not the policies of the Texas Republican Party.
If Texas Republicans do not want this to be their policies, why do they govern that way? And why do they permit a system that, if what you say is true, produces platforms that make them a national laughingstock?
The only explanation is that they actually do believe these things, or at very least have no objection to people thinking that they do.
Well, they don't exactly advertise the platform. The reason they permit it is because it keeps the wingnuts behind them, because it hasn't hurt them yet, and inertia. I don't know if you're American or not, but there's lots of doofy pandering-to-the-lunatics politics that will never—and indeed, is not intended to—result in policy being enacted.If Texas Republicans do not want this to be their policies, why do they govern that way? And why do they permit a system that, if what you say is true, produces platforms that make them a national laughingstock?
The only explanation is that they actually do believe these things, or at very least have no objection to people thinking that they do.
To my regret, I am an American. I don't see much material difference between the platform the Texas GOP voted in and national GOP policy. Hence I find it pretty hard to credit your idea that this is a meaningless sop to the crazies.
You can go down the list and tick off obvious lunatic nonsense, especially if you put yourself in the mindset of a wealthy Houston pol. They're not going to promote corporal punishment, nor ban sodomy, nor go back to the gold standard, nor mention raw milk in any context ever, etc.But the most telling point is that this isn't something that they're shouting from the rooftops. I mean, really, if the Texas Republicans though banning sodomy or killing ESL or going back to the gold standard was something other than political suicide, isn't that something they'd be proud of?
Ok, I know when I've been trolled. Well played.
They won't be happy until she's governor.
Oh my! I watched Wife Swap with my mom back then and that was our simply favorite episode EVAR!!! That woman was freakin' insane we loved her, we kept having to pause and rewind to hear more of what she said cause we were laughing so hard.
I'm actually serious. These are political suicide, and they are not positions the Texas Republican Party actually holds.Ok, I know when I've been trolled. Well played.
OK, then if what the organization publishes on their website, what their constituents believe, and what legislation they propose doesn't determine what beliefs the Texas Republican Party actually holds, what on earth does? How do we find out, short of a Ouija board or a dowsing rod?
After doing a lazy google search I've found that this platform seems to have all the experts fooled as well, AMiB, so you really ought to tell them all it's just a joke. It's getting a lot of negative buzz, and after being given a chance they only retracted small parts of it.
I'd also like to point out that, in Texas, none of those policies are political suicide. The Texas GOP is in pretty good sync with the voter base. People be freaking crazy. Frankly I'm surprised they didn't declare beef a vegetable and try to secede again.
In the end, the proof is in the pudding. Their education policies, part of their overall platform, are pretty telling considering the downright sabotage the education system in Texas has suffered at the hands of the religious right.
It didn't pass.OK, then if what the organization publishes on their website, what their constituents believe, and what legislation they propose doesn't determine what beliefs the Texas Republican Party actually holds, what on earth does? How do we find out, short of a Ouija board or a dowsing rod?Let me know when Texas Republicans propose legislation about raw milk, the gold standard, abolishing ESL, banning sodomy, etc. The actual policies—death penalty, anti-immigration unless it's enforcing laws against employers, homophobia, subsidizing business, sabotaging any public safety net—are poisonous, but this list is comedy wingnut hour.
You still didn't answer though, how is it you have this insight that the rest of the media does not? Is it just "gut feeling" that they aren't serious about these things? Other states seem to take their party platform pretty seriously, why doesn't Texas?
EDIT: For the record the 2010 platform seems to have a lot of this stuff as well. Sodomy law stuff. No ESL after year 3. The critical thinking skills part seems to be a specific reversal, however
The primary purpose of public schools is to teach critical thinking skills, reading,
writing, arithmetic, phonics, history, science, and character as well as knowledge-based education, not job training.
It didn't pass.Not only did it not pass, it didn't even make it out of committee.
Yeah, but that's not what you asked for :)
I don't think much of what we're debating WOULD even get voted on, or the things that would would be limp-wristed declarations like demanding the US go back on the gold standard (I could see this happening) but they could only do that because such a statement would have no power to actually change US fiscal or monetary policy.As for the rest I guess I have to take your word. Back to the original topic though: seeing as the Texas primary education infrastructure is already all sorts of messed up, do you really think they won't try to make it worse?
AMiB is correct, and this pretty much applies across the board to all political parties.
Best bet is to start ignoring what they say and start paying attention to what they do, which is next to nothing for the average citizen.