Monday, May 04, 2009
A New Party
So for those who want a third party I think I have a theory. I think sooner rather then later people like Specter, Bayh, Collins, Nelson, Snowe (in other words moderate Republicans and conservitive Democrats) will form their own party cause really there is no room in either party for them. That's my theory anyway,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I think you've got it wrong. It is true conservatives who are fed up with the Republican party who may become a new party, or perhaps, merge with the Libertarian party.
The Tea Partys are one of the first indications of this.
Ooh, that would be so cool! After the alliance with opportunists, bigots, racists, and young-earth creationists leads to their views being discredited with mainstream America, conservative Republicans leave one dying party to instead join a party known for nominating Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates who like to describe how their anuses have been probed by aliens from UFO's.
Swapping alliances from one set of nut jobs to another strikes me as political suicide. If conservatives want to line up for figuratively jumping off a cliff, though, I shall applaud.
You know Tom, I find it curious how you made such a generalization and probably think it's funny and perfectly okay to do so.
If I were to tag even one of those names on the Democrat Party as a whole, I would be condemned by you and Erik as a hate-monger or something of that ilk.
Who's really being the bigot here?
Parse carefully. I most definitely did not hang the terms "opportunists, bigots, racists, and young-earth creationists" on the Republican Party as a whole. I was careful, in fact, to distinguish between conservative Republicans and the nutjobs they've allied with, who even McCain had to disown when they tried to turn his campaign events into Hate Rallies, and who seem to have taken over the government of Texas in the name of the G.O.P.
Except for "racist," in fact, all of those terms accurately describe Sarah Palin.
Reading is Fundamental, Robert. Or, are you denying the role they play in the vaunted "Republican base," or are you defending them?
As for the Libertarians, you'll find yourself in good company. I wasn't joking about the candidates for major office who liked to steer the conversation to their UFO abduction experiences. Here's who they ran for governor of California in 2002: http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2002/copeland.htm .
Okay, now parsing carefully....
"After the alliance with opportunists, bigots, racists, and young-earth creationists leads to their views being discredited with mainstream America, conservative Republicans..."Okay, parsed now. I'm still coming up with a generalization made about conservative Republicans.
If the Republican party really consisted of conservatives, I would re-join them in a heartbeat. Instead, it's full of "neo-cons" and "RINO's" and I'll have no part of that.
As for Palin, she is an opportunist (the best people are). I don't know why you would call her a bigot and if she is a creationist, I really don't care.
You also generalized the Libertarian Party. None of the one's I'm aware of or personally know claim to have been abducted by ET's.
The only person in politics I've ever heard of telling a story like that is Dennis Kucinch, a Democrat.
Tom you forgot to mention how Republicans are openly calling for an overthrow of the governemnt. I believe the term is anarchy. Michelle Bachman has, Rick Perry has Sarah Palin was part of a group who wanted Alaska to leave the United States. Rush Limbaugh (not taken out of context despite what Robert claimed) has said he wants America to fail. That's anarchy.
It is Obama and his cronies who are overthrowing the government changing America from a land of opportunity (Capitalism) to a land of entitlement (Socialism). Conservatives are trying to prevent this from happening. That is not anarchy.
Anarchy is no law whatsoever. No reasonable person wants that.
Of course, not all Libertarians are nutjobs; just like not all Republicans are nutjobs, or even how not all Republicans are fiscal conservatives. It's just that the Libertarians, like the current Republican party, have a history of nominating and blindly supporting the nutjobs. Unlike Republicans, Libertarians don't get elected, so the nutjobs are less visible.
The most revealing line Robert posted was, about Sarah Palin, "if she is a creationist, I really don't care." Robert is in denial about the wing of the party, one that currently controls Texas and Louisiana, that believes the Earth is about 6,000 years old, that 2,500 years ago a flood covered all land on the Earth, and that the earth has been completely repopulated since then, and that about 2,000 years ago the Earth completely stopped in its orbit around the Sun for a 24 hour period.
In Texas, these nutjobs are rewriting the Science and Social Studies curricula to reflect these views of science and history. Due to market forces that Robert does not want to regulate, the Texas curricula standards determine the content of about half of our nations school textbooks. Robert doesn't care that teaching faith-based science and history, instead of fact-based critical thinking, is threatening America's future by churning out a generation that mistakes dogma for truth.
Roy Moore, a Republican elected to be Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, exemplifies how dangerous this large part of the "Republican base" can be. In the case of Ex parte H.H. (2002), Moore's opinion stated without any room for doubt that being gay was a crime, and one appropriate to be punished by "the sword of the state."
First, of course, one must acknowledge the fun that Freud would have had with that statement. But the unintentional humor doesn't hide the fact that it is perfectly ok with this (now former) state Supreme Court Justice, and ok to the people who voted for him and continue to support him, for the State to execute people for the crime of being gay.
Of course, not all young-earth creationists support killing gay people. But their blind support of every word of the Bible being God's unalterable Law allows people like Moore to achieve power, while turning out generations of children with warped views of science and history.
But that's ok with Robert, who doesn't care.
Finally, if "socialism" is the term for reigning-in the boom/bust cycle unfettered capitalism always produces, then I'm for it. John Nash won the Nobel Prize for proving that a steady growth equilibrium produced through regulation could actually benefit the economy in the long term to a greater degree than would allowing Adam Smith's "invisible hand" to prevail. Although, I don't think working within the political process to change things constitutes "overthrow." Secession, as advocated by the Republican Party of Texas, however, IS overthrow and anarchy.
Robert all I hear from your side is "Obama is a socialist" and as someone who I consider smart as I feel you are I'm always suprised you fall for the lies people like Limbaugh says. I guess you are gullible. You and your "government out of everything" crowd needs to grow up and realize that IS NOT PRACTICAL! Robert I always get amused also how you claim to be an independent YET always seem upset when the right described as racists. They are also homophobes and need to really change from their bible first (nevermind how many of the commandments THEY break and how many rules of the bible THEY break but that's another post)
Wow! There's a lot to answer to both of you.
Erik,
You hear "Obama is a socialist" from "my side" because, well... he is indeed, a socialist. That shouldn't be shrugged off or taken lightly. There is no bigger evil in the universe as socialism. Socialism always comes in the form of the strong-spoken, smiling, confident figure who is going to "change" the way things are done by forcing equalization of wealth. Obama is following the footsteps of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, and even Hitler. Look at how people see him as some kind of messiah, it's fricking scary how similiar it is to the way people initially responded to the monsters listed above.
Be very careful of who you are supporting. I am quite confident that Obama is not the person you think he is and he is definitely no messiah. You said you feel I am smart so if that is true, take it from one smart person that it is you who are being gullible in accepting this man so easily because they put a "(D)" by his name. It takes smarts to see this as the politicians and the media are going to keep blaming others for the bad times that we are in and the ones that are coming. You're smart too, Erik. Take a step back and really consider who you are siding with.
Tom,
You blast me for not caring about Palin's creationist beliefs. I have to ask you then, Why do you care? You do realize of course that most people in this country believe in God, right? Therefore, most people in this country do believe in some form of Intelligent Design. Contrary to what you may personally believe, Intelligent Design and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.
"Of course, not all young-earth creationists support killing gay people."What a ridiculous statement! You are implying here that most, or at least, a strong percentage of these people support killing gays. How in the hell do you make such a connection? Obviously because of one guy (Moore), you make a very broad conclusion.
As for your fear of textbooks from Texas corrupting our children, I have to laugh. As I understand it, our children today are being indoctrinated by our government schools to believe that our founding fathers were all slave-owning, rich, white assholes and their ideas should be discredited. So don't worry Tom, our children are being taught the politically correct history that I assume you want.
That's it for now. I won't be posting this weekend but we can continue this discussion next week if you'd like.
My, we seemed to have hit a nerve with Robert! Let's just hit the highlights:
First from his response to Erik, "Obama is following in the footsteps of... Hitler." While I know Holocaust survivors who would be far more offended with Robert's statement than I am, that statement is highly offensive, and just as highly inaccurate. It's also rhetorically self-defeating, as Godwin's law of the fallacious nature of reducto ad Hitlerium has demonstrated in countless other fora and debates time and time again: when the Hitler analogy comes out, it's usually because the facts aren't on one's side, and resorting to hysteria, while rhetorically dishonest, is seen as the only way of recapturing momentum in the debate. Shame on you, Robert.
As for whether or not Robert is even capable of taking a step back and making an honest appraisal of people outside of their party, let's look at his responses to me.
"You do realize of course that most people in this country believe in God, right? Therefore, most people in this country do believe in some form of Intelligent Design. Contrary to what you may personally believe, Intelligent Design and Evolution are not mutually exclusive."
It's possible, of course, that Robert may be unaware of the lies proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) make about why they want it taught, as the judge noted many times during the Dover, Pennsylvania school board case, where ID proponents repeatedly perjured themselves, expecting, somehow, to be rewarded in Heaven for violating the commandment against bearing false witness. But I would think he's be capable of recognizing that Christians who insist the universe is only 6,000 years old, and that all land plants, land animals, and humans descend from a few mated pairs that survived a flood 2,500 years ago, are no different from fundamentalist Hindus who insist that the world is flat and resting on the backs of four elephants standing on a tortoise. Science has conclusively demonstrated, in multiple independent observations and experiments, that neither view matches with reality. Most Christians - including the Pope - accept evolution as a fact and the age of the universe at about 12.6 billion years, just like most Hindus have dropped the idea about the elephants and the turtle. Neither of those large group of believers really wants their lunatic fringe teaching history or science. Robert, however, either can't or won't distinguish the difference.
Robert also confuses, as to be fair many do, xenogenesis with biological evolution. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about how the first forms were created, just that all current forms evolved from earlier and more primitive ones. While there are many hypotheses about xenogenesis, how life originally formed, and many intriguing guesses, that field is still wide open. What is scientifically certain is that life on Earth evolved from simpler forms over the pas few billion years. People who dismiss facts because they conflict with preconceived belief have no business teaching science or making scientific policy, in my opinion, regardless of their party affiliation.
"Obviously because of one guy (Moore), you make a very broad conclusion." There was more to what I said than that, but let me restate it more clearly: Moore won a Republican primary and a general election from voters who knew in advance exactly what his views were. Republican voters. Robert can pretend this wing of his party doesn't exist, but when he does that he's sticking his head in the sand, and not taking a step back to "really consider who you are siding with."
Finally, Robert slams political correctness on the false assumption that I support such. Well, if you can't win on the facts, make up a straw man you can attack, and say your opponent believes it. My own public school experience taught me to think critically, taught me that the Founding Fathers were human beings who achieved great things, but were still human, and to follow and seek the truth, however unpleasant the facts may be. I fully realize that as a Democrat, I am part of the same party as Al Sharpton and Gavin Newsome; but I admit their many flaws and look at how I can challenge both them and my party towards a path that seeks the truth. I also note that Sharpton has never held office, and will work to see that Newsome never holds a statewide one.
Robert, on the other hand, uses straw man arguments and other rhetorical dishonesty to pretend there's not a religious fringe the Republicans consciously have allied with and allowed to have power, that if there is they pose no threat, and hysterically shouts that Obama is Hitler, and you can trust him on that, because he's objective.
Robert
A) I never claimed President Obama is the messiah. That's Rush, O'Reilly and all the psychopaths on right-wing media that do. You are stupid enough to buy into that
and
B) You better not talk about Hitler to me considering you know my religion what he did to it but if you wanna compare anyone to Hitler we need to look no further then George Bush and policies like torture, kidnapping foreign citizens, holding people without due process, we can even go as far as possible genocide for what he did to the people in Iraq for no reason. You really need to look in the mirror and YOUR president for that. And if you claim he got bad advice that's BS and you know it!
You two threw a lot back at me. I'll try to be as concise as I can.
First of all, to both of you: It's absolutely amazing to me that I can say "Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez" and no one cares. However, if I say "Hitler", then everyone loses their mind. Earlier Tom, you asked me to parse what you wrote. I have to now ask you to do the same. I never said "Obama is like Hitler." My point is that he is being heralded as an agent of change in a very similar and scary way. I am being a little vague on this point as I am currently working on an article for my own blog that will dig deeper into this idea.
Tom: I stated earlier that most people believe in some form of intelligent design. I stand by that completely as most people believe in God. For anyone who believes in God, how can that individual not believe in intelligent design since that's the whole point of God to begin with, isn't it?
The major difference between conservatives and liberals on this whole thing is that most conservatives can believe in intelligent design and still believe in evolution. The left, however, always seems to argue that evolution disproves the existance of God. Yes, I realize there are those who thump their Bibles and claim that God snapped his proverbial fingers and created Man. These people comprise a much smaller percentage than I think you want to realize.
I ask myself, "Why does this all matter in the world of politics?" It obviously matters to you because you fear that schools are going to ruin our children by teaching this stuff. Personally, I don't really care (yes, I know that bothers you) because ultimately, an intelligent person is going to make their own decision. I went to Catholic school and was never taught evolution. However, I was a believer in evolution by the time I was 10 or so from my own reading. I even got into arguments with my parents over this.
To be honest, I don't get your argument concerning political correctness.
Erik: A while back, you made a grandiose argument that all religion is wrong and that the world would be a much better place if there was no religion. I would conclude from those posts that you disassociated yourself from religion. Now, all of a sudden, you are playing the "I'm a Jew" card because I mention Hitler. You can't have it both ways Erik.
Post a Comment