User Tag List

First 949575859606169 Last

Results 581 to 590 of 798

  1. #581
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    You don't resent having to ask whether it is okay for the view of your subset of republicanism to be expressed? It seems like the "moral wing" of the party is relegated to a position of prostration to that of the "economists." Not trying to start a "shitfest" but I'm curious because it seems both parties can see which elements of THE OTHER party are being used and why, but not themselves and this fascinates me.
    The economists of the right wing have twisted and perverted the religious ends of the party in order to sway people in a direction that would harm themselves. You can't really get people to vote for things that would harm themselves and their children unless you tell them God would like it that way.

    On a web site a couple of months ago I actually saw a girl post that Jesus was a Capitalist and she really meant it.

    I was just speechless. It's also what has given me cause to want to step back from any and all political discussion, and makes me understand why some of the yoga books I've read have advised that yogis drop their politics, or that "small trees" build a fence around themselves until they are big strong trees that can give shade, because I'm sick of allowing this stuff to affect or alarm me.

    It's false religion. Period. I actually had to go through Taoism to begin to truly appreciate Christianity for what it actually is as a spiritual philosophy rather than the slanted Capitalist American teaching of it.

    I appreciate @Peguy 's points about being less divisive, and attempting to see the other side's view, what what he says is frankly only relevant for people who actually believe that, and not some bizarre Capitalist reading of Christianity that often seems decidedly anti-Christian.

    I mean in terms of @KDude quoting that Ayn Coulter comment, of course the Bible doesn't really say that, and in fact I think a sane, sober Christian would actually make an argument for being responsible stewards of God's creation, not rapists of it.

    I just have to stay out of it.

  2. #582
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I don't find it fascinating. It's kind of disturbing.. and few things disturb me. A good example is the current mess in Alaska, with the Pebble mining project (a dispute over copper rich land which also contains salmon hatcheries). Some conservatives have been so warped by industrialist talking points in their own party that anyone who wants to protect the habitat is mocked as a "liberal tree hugger" or they fall back on the usual talking point of "government regulation is bad". They haven't claimed the environmental message for themselves - which is the actual responsible and conservative message. They end up preaching a Capitalist message. The message of quick profits that will only aid a few dynastic families in the long run, and destroy a habitat and fishing economy that renews itself year after year for millions of years. That's gold for everyone traded for gold for a few. It's a Faustian deal. And a deal right wing moralists have blinded themselves to.

    Sarah Palin is one of these staunch moralists and a native of Alaska, but also for drilling those mines. On general environmental issues, the message is similar. Or downright kooky. "Climate change is Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus from evangelism to environmentalism". - Jerry Falwell. "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours." - Ann Coulter

    As far as I'm concerned, changing this stance is a hundred times more important than trying to bridge gaps with "gay marriage". But it's a stance that would fly in the face of Capitalist pressures in the party. Gay marriage doesn't.
    The anti-environmentalist stance is bizarrely illogical, it doesn't even serve commerce in the long-term. Even if we divorce this issue from ethics, I'm not sure how any person with actual critical thinking skills believes that destruction of the environment is cool.

  3. #583
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    The anti Keystone XL is bizarrely illogical.

  4. #584
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    More analysis of the Republican quagmire, why not?
    Lipstick on an Elephant.



    Christie-Huntsman for 2016! I'm working on a slogan for them. It's a little unpolished at the moment, but for now it goes like this: "Republicans don't have to be fucking insane!"
    From the Daily Beast:

    Are Republicans the New Democrats?

    Who would have guessed last year that the GOP would be endorsing a litany of previously unthinkable positions?

    These days, Republicans are starting to sound a lot like Democrats. It may not seem obvious at first, especially when every elephant in Washington is loudly and proudly refusing to negotiate with President Barack Obama over the sequestration fiasco.

    But put down your newspaper. Log off the blogs. Step back for a second. Look at what the GOP said it stood for during the 2012 campaign, which concluded four short months ago. Now look at the legislation the same party is proposing—and the positions its members are staking out—today.

    The gap is staggering. If it continues to grow, it may come to represent one of the most rapid and drastic party makeovers in recent American political history.

    Let’s start with social issues. When the GOP ratified its 2012 platform during last summer’s convention in Tampa, Florida, it was very clear on gay marriage: no same-sex unions allowed.

    “We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” the delegates wrote. “We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.”

    On the trail, the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, said pretty much the same thing. “I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender,” he explained, “and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name.” Like the RNC delegates, Romney also supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

    But that was then. Now, Beth Myers, who ran Romney’s 2008 campaign and served as a senior adviser to him in 2012, has joined more than 100 other Republicans—including former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, Jr., New York Rep. Richard Hanna, and fellow Romney adviser Meg Whitman—in adding her name to a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to declare that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed.

    Large swaths of the GOP have pulled a similar 180 on immigration. During the 2012 primaries, Romney made it his mission to outflank his rivals on the issue, repeatedly declaring that he favored a policy of “self-deportation” and would veto the DREAM act if elected. As he put it in New Hampshire, “for those that come here illegally, the idea of giving them in-state tuition credits or other special benefits I find to be the contrary to the idea of a nation of law.”

    Romney’s party agreed, crafting a 2012 platform that opposed “any forms of amnesty” for illegal immigrants, instead endorsing “humane procedures to encourage illegal aliens to return home voluntarily”—i.e., self-deportation. “In order to restore the rule of law,” the GOP delegates wrote, “federal funding should be denied to universities that provide in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens.”

    But, again, that was then. Now, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is actively working on a comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform bill in Washington, and at least four of his fellow 2016 hopefuls—Wisconsin Representative (and 2012 vice-presidential nominee) Paul Ryan, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker—have come out in favor of a pathway to citizenship (or come close). Sean Hannity is now pro-citizenship; so is Fox News chief Roger Ailes.

    Meanwhile, Republicans legislators in Colorado and Oregon have reversed course in the new year, voting in favor of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

    The transformation has been so sudden, in fact, that earlier this week former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, himself a potential 2016 candidate, had to walk back a position from his new book, Immigration Wars, on the same day it was released, announcing on MSNBC that he doesn’t “have a problem” with a pathway to citizenship—despite a sentence in the book that makes the exact opposite argument. (“It is absolutely vital to the integrity of our immigration system that … those who violated the law can remain but cannot obtain the cherished fruits of citizenship.”) Asked to explain the about-face, Bush blamed the shifting political sands. “We wrote this last year,” he said.

    The GOP’s attitude toward social issues isn’t the only thing that’s changed since the distant days of 2012; the new year has also seen seismic shifts on Obamacare and defense spending. You might recall that during the 2012 campaign, the Republican Party was not particularly pleased with Obama’s health-reform law. Romney pledged “to repeal Obamacare on Day One”; the GOP platform characterized the law, variously, as “an attack on our Constitution,” “the high-water mark of outdated liberalism,” and “the latest attempt to impose upon Americans a euro-style bureaucracy to manage all aspects of their lives.” Meanwhile, Republican governors such as Arizona’s Jan Brewer, Utah’s Gary Herbert, Ohio’s John Kasich, and Florida’s Rick Scott vowed to not to implement the dreaded Obamacare under any circumstances.

    But now those governors have changed their minds. In recent weeks, each has agreed to expand his or her state’s Medicaid program as outlined under Obama's health-care law. The Rick Scott example is especially telling. As New York’s Jonathan Chait writes, “from the moment he appeared on the national stage, Scott seemed to be engineered to fight health-care reform. The wealthy owner of a vast hospital chain that paid massive fines for overbilling Medicare during his tenure, Scott bankrolled an anti-reform lobby, then ran and won in 2010 on a platform of obsessive opposition to Obamacare. He has steadfastly vowed to turn down federal subsidies to cover his state’s uninsured, and even concocted phony accounting assumptions to justify his stance.” But no more. “It doesn’t matter what I believe,” Scott said late last month. “The Supreme Court made its decision. We had an election in the fall, and the public made their decision. Now the president’s healthcare law is the law.”

    Defense spending is a similar story. For decades, Republicans have agreed that the military budget should not be cut under any circumstances, and they’ve bludgeoned any Democrat who suggests otherwise for being “weak on defense.” In 2012, Romney was so wedded to this position that he promised to expand the defense budget to 4 percent of GDP—a proposal that would have hiked federal spending by $2 trillion over 10 years at a time of soaring debt and shrinking revenue. “The idea of cutting our military commitment ... is unthinkable, and devastating," Romney said. “And when I become president of the United States, we will stop it. I will not cut our commitment to our military.”

    But since the election, Republicans have grown increasingly comfortable with the idea of cutting defense spending—and last week, by forcing the sequester to go into effect, they finally triggered some cuts themselves. If nothing changes, the plan will gradually shrink the Pentagon’s budget to 2006 levels by slashing about $50 billion a year over the next decade. And so far, the GOP response has been surprisingly sanguine. As the Senate's No. 2 Republican, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, told CNN late last month, the deficit should be paramount since the United States has ended its fighting in Iraq and is winding down the war in Afghanistan—and anyway, the cuts are not going to have as negative an impact as the Pentagon and others in the Obama administration are saying.

    If you had predicted back in October 2012 that significant portions of the Republican Party would soon be OK with gay marriage, supportive of citizenship for illegal immigrants, accepting of Obamacare, and cool with defense cuts, many observers would have called you crazy. But as of March 2013, that’s the direction the GOP is heading. As generations of politicians have reminded us, elections have consequences. This time around, a major Republican identity crisis appears to be one of them.

  5. #585
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Some conservatives have been so warped by industrialist talking points in their own party that anyone who wants to protect the habitat is mocked as a "liberal tree hugger" or they fall back on the usual talking point of "government regulation is bad".

    They end up preaching a Capitalist message. The message of quick profits that will only aid a few dynastic families in the long run, and destroy a habitat and fishing economy that renews itself year after year for millions of years. That's gold for everyone traded for gold for a few.
    Did you notice the similarity between your caricature in the first paragraph and the self-caricature your statements convey in the second paragraph? You don't think that maybe, among those who have actually studied this particular issue and have not simply taken a position based on extreme anti-regulatory or anti-capitalist/anti-extraction assumptions (which is pretty much all you have provided as the basis for either position*), there is simply a disagreement concerning the costs/benefits and risks involved?

    *which is perfectly understandable for brevity purposes, I'm just wondering if you noticed the apparent similarities.

  6. #586
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    You don't think that maybe...
    No. Honestly, I'm ready for class war already. Just waiting for a cue. The time for thinking of "maybes" is over. I have no interest is meeting the opposing side in issues like this halfway. It'd still be a shitty meeting point, if I did.

  7. #587
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    No. Honestly, I'm ready for class war already. Just waiting for a cue. The time for thinking of "maybes" is over. I have no interest is meeting the opposing side in issues like this halfway. It'd still be a shitty meeting point, if I did.
    OK, but that directly contradicts everything you posted previously about centrism.

  8. #588
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    The anti-environmentalist stance is bizarrely illogical, it doesn't even serve commerce in the long-term. Even if we divorce this issue from ethics, I'm not sure how any person with actual critical thinking skills believes that destruction of the environment is cool.
    My father gets a kick out of knocking down trees with a bobcat for no reason at all. He also enjoys dumping motor oil on the ground and in sewers (I've seen him do this multiple times through the years). He starts giggling when he does it because he hates "liberals" so much. I'm not kidding or even exaggerating. He's like a real-life troll with this stuff. When Bush won back in 2004, he did a fist-pump and shouted "Yes" like his baseball team just won the World Series. There is nothing logical about his views on environmentalism. The best I can make of it, it's an emotional reaction to the whining he hears from people like Rush Limbaugh.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #589
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    My father gets a kick out of knocking down trees with a bobcat for no reason at all. He also enjoys dumping motor oil on the ground and in sewers (I've seen him do this multiple times through the years). He starts giggling when he does it because he hates "liberals" so much. I'm not kidding or even exaggerating. He's like a real-life troll with this stuff. When Bush won back in 2004, he did a fist-pump and shouted "Yes" like his baseball team just won the World Series. There is nothing logical about his views on environmentalism. The best I can make of it, it's an emotional reaction to the whining he hears from people like Rush Limbaugh.
    That's why I can't do it or be around it. I need to set a self-imposed ban even on myself from participating in these kinds of threads. My grandfather was a Republican, and a Southern one at that, and he still disposed of motor oil properly and didn't knock down trees for fun; of course he was far too sensible for that, and if you even read some of Reagan's platforms from the 1980s in some ways they are more similar to Obama and the present-day Republican party.

    I swear it's like they're serving Lead Casserole at Republican gatherings.

  10. #590
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    OK, but that directly contradicts everything you posted previously about centrism.
    It isn't centrism when one side starts off on the negotiating table with a huge deficit in power (and capital). I talk about a future conflict, but there are some rich folk who already fully admit the conflict has started. "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”- Warren Buffett (note he's a democrat himself however).

    Glad you pointed that out though. I fully admit I have limits.

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO