Democratic World vs. Republican World [Archive]

dig420

04-23-2003, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by wig@Apr 23 2003, 11:53 AM
Where's Ayn Rand when you need her?

Leftistan would not survive without Rightistan! :redance:
more propaganda victims.. Newt Gingrich is a vicious asshole, therefore the conservatives are tougher in war.

Historically conservatives are isolationists, it's the leftists who go to war and fuck people up. The difference is we do it for self-preservation, the right does it to hide domestic ineptitude.

"SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family" http://salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/23/sant...orum/index.html (http://salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/23/santorum/index.html)

on the right you can only have sex with your wife with the lights out, missionary style, vagina only of course, and there are govt. cameras in your house. Everybody goes to church, your librarian keeps a list of your reading material and your mail carrier is a govt. informant. I think I'd want to live on the Left Coast :awinky:

Torone

04-24-2003, 09:34 AM

Actually, Leftistan would attempt to invade/annex Rightistan in order to make sure everyone was 'giving' 'their fair share'; but would (because of the ineptness inherent in the Leftist system) lose. After beating them back into the Stone Age, Rightistan would rebuild their country and help them to establish a Representative form of gov't. Since Leftists never change, at the end of 50 years, things would be about back to what they were at the start.

Torone

04-24-2003, 09:44 AM

Dig,
Much is being made of Santorum's words by the Left; but it's really smoke and mirrors. The fact is that if he was a Leftist, nothing would be said; and if it was, there would be hordes of leftists jumping up to defend him.

Question: Why do leftists think that they have an exclusive right to say whatever they choose, no matter what it is; and that everyone else should remain the 'silent majority'?

No matter how I might feel about sodomy (BTW, that term technically applies to the act, not the gender of the participants), I have a much stronger feeling that...

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BELONG IN A PRIVATE RESIDENCE!!!

wig

04-24-2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by dig420+Apr 23 2003, 09:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dig420 @ Apr 23 2003, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Apr 23 2003, 11:53 AM
Where's Ayn Rand when you need her?

Leftistan would not survive without Rightistan! :redance:
more propaganda victims.. Newt Gingrich is a vicious asshole, therefore the conservatives are tougher in war.

Historically conservatives are isolationists, it's the leftists who go to war and fuck people up. The difference is we do it for self-preservation, the right does it to hide domestic ineptitude.

"SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family" http://salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/23/sant...orum/index.html (http://salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/23/santorum/index.html)

on the right you can only have sex with your wife with the lights out, missionary style, vagina only of course, and there are govt. cameras in your house. Everybody goes to church, your librarian keeps a list of your reading material and your mail carrier is a govt. informant. I think I'd want to live on the Left Coast :awinky:[/b][/quote]
Dig,

What does Newt and Santorum have to do with my post??

Are you sure you gave up the kind bud? :blink:

PornoDoggy

04-24-2003, 11:02 AM

Funny thing is, IMHO in 20 years they would be almost identical, assuming that the center splits down the middle. Probably even find them working together to stamp out the terrorist conncections between the theocrats in Rightistan and the PETAcrats in Leftistan.

wig

04-24-2003, 11:13 AM

PD,

what I don't get is why the masses cling to either right or left. why are there not more libertarians?

it seems to me, the centrists have a lot in common with libertarians.

04-24-2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by wig@Apr 24 2003, 07:21 AM
PD,

what I don't get is why the masses cling to either right or left. why are there not more libertarians?

it seems to me, the centrists have a lot in common with libertarians.
why the masses cling to either right or left (http://www.mtsu.edu/~devstud/advisor/hemis.html)

04-24-2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 24 2003, 07:10 AM
Funny thing is, IMHO in 20 years they would be almost identical, assuming that the center splits down the middle. Probably even find them working together to stamp out the terrorist conncections between the theocrats in Rightistan and the PETAcrats in Leftistan.
i dont think it would happen because the existence of either would be dependent on criticising the other.

Almighty Colin

04-24-2003, 01:33 PM

Where is the freedom in either Leftistan or Rightistan?

Some conservatives want to make homosexuality in public illegal.

Some liberals want to make discussing homosexuality in public illegal [IF opinion differs from theirs].

dig420

04-24-2003, 06:52 PM

stretching it a little bit eh Colin? :D

you're saying we want to make discussing homosexuality illegal illegal? which Senator proposed that?

Vick

04-24-2003, 07:05 PM

The world is coming to an end .... sooner than we anticipated

Click Here for Hemispheric Dominance Inventory Test (http://www.mtsu.edu/~devstud/advisor/hemispheric_dominance.html)

"You responded as a right brained person to 12 questions, and you responded as a left brained person to 7 questions. "

It could be said I'm in my right mind for the most part

Almighty Colin

04-24-2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 24 2003, 06:00 PM
stretching it a little bit eh Colin? :D

you're saying we want to make discussing homosexuality illegal illegal? which Senator proposed that?
Hey Dig,

Not sure. Maybe so.

I am not in favor of making someone's employment dependent on their opinions or their wisdom to keep quiet about their opinions no matter how distasteful they may be. I don't think any of this year's holy trinity of politically incorrect nonconformists; Lott, Moran, and Santorum should be or should have been forced to resign from their position for their unpopular comments,

Illegal is probably too strong of a word.

Calling for the resignation of Senators who "step out of line". Hmmmm.

There is the argument that a Senator as a representative of a state or of the nation should not, and maybe should be prohibited from, making such remarks. The counter-argument is that such opinions are a necessary part of the political process.

Santorum's comments were regarding legislation and I find them less offensive and more necessary than Moran's or Lott's on those grounds alone though I strongly disagree with him and both of them in kind.

Last edited by Colin at Apr 24 2003, 06:53 PM

PornoDoggy

04-24-2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 24 2003, 06:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 24 2003, 06:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--dig420@Apr 24 2003, 06:00 PM
stretching it a little bit eh Colin? :D

you're saying we want to make discussing homosexuality illegal illegal? which Senator proposed that?
Hey Dig,

Not sure. Maybe so.

I am not in favor of making someone's employment dependent on their opinions or their wisdom to keep quiet about their opinions no matter how distasteful they may be. I don't think any of this year's holy trinity of politically incorrect nonconformists; Lott, Moran, and Santorum should be or should have been forced to resign from their position for their unpopular comments,

Illegal is probably too strong of a word.

Calling for the resignation of Senators who "step out of line". Hmmmm.

There is the argument that a Senator as a representative of a state or of the nation should not, and maybe should be prohibited from, making such remarks. The counter-argument is that such opinions are a necessary part of the political process.

Santorum's comments were regarding legislation and I find them less offensive and more necessary than Moran's or Lott's on those grounds alone though I strongly disagree with him and both of them in kind.[/b][/quote]
Colin, the "Some liberals want to make discussing homosexuality in public illegal" is beneath you. Some liberals don't hesitate to call a bigot a bigot when they hear one talking.

Santorum's comments were actually about a legal case heading to the Supreme Court over laws from a state other than his, not about current legislation pending before the U.S Senate. Besides, IMHO that distinction is just about as solid as discussions a few years ago about what constituted having heterosexual relations with "that woman" - it's hair splitting in the finest tradition of any party. Again IMHO, the only people more foolish that those who actually believe that distinction has the slightest validity are those who are indignant that such opinions are prevelant in mainstream Republican circles.

In theory I agree with you that "I not in favor of making someone's employment dependent on their opinions or their wisdom to keep quiet about their opinions no matter how distasteful they may be." I wonder how far we are willing to take that, however. I am not terribly enthusiastic about the possiblity that waxing nostalgic about the good old days of segregation becomes an acceptable mainstream political practice again - I'm old enough to remember when it was. What's next? Mainstream politicians advocating a return to Jim Crow, or advocating Third Reich style means of dealing with the "them" dujour?

Besides, Lott wasn't forced to resign from the Senate - he was just moved out of a leadership position for stating the party's positions on civil rights too bluntly.

Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 24 2003, 08:32 PM

dig420

04-24-2003, 09:24 PM

I don't want them to resign, I want them to stay in office. I think it's GREAT when Republican leaders fuck up and say openly what they usually disguise in thinly veiled codewords. There are waaaaaaay too many idiots out there who NEED to hear Santorum talking about police busting into bedrooms and dragging people away on the charge of First Degree Blowjob. Otherwise they just won't understand what the Repubs are really about.

dig420

04-24-2003, 09:26 PM

I am not terribly enthusiastic about the possiblity that waxing nostalgic about the good old days of segregation becomes an acceptable mainstream political practice. What's next? Mainstream politicians advocating a return to Jim Crow, or advocating Third Reich style means of dealing with the "them" dujour?

Besides, Lott wasn't forced to resign from the Senate - he was just moved out of a leadership position for stating the party's positions on civil rights too bluntly.
---------------------

I say do it, get em out there saying what they REALLY mean.

Give the voters a REAL choice by gawd...

dig420

04-24-2003, 09:32 PM

why even try to rationalize and defend the indefensible, Colin?

just leave the dark side, you'll be much happier with us :)

Almighty Colin

04-25-2003, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 24 2003, 08:31 PM
Colin, the "Some liberals want to make discussing homosexuality in public illegal" is beneath you.
Nothing is beneath me. You should know that.

Almighty Colin

04-25-2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 24 2003, 08:40 PM
why even try to rationalize and defend the indefensible, Colin?

Because there are various ideologies that always come to heads in these debates. It's quite interesting. Most of the time I feel pretty much on the fence not from indecisiveness but because I can't see one as better than the other and I don't like where either leads.

In this particular one ...

1. How far should we take free speech?
2. How far should we be politically correct?

What kind of society do we want to live in? What kind of society do I want to live in?

Such questions of ethics to me are indeterminate.

As much as I don't want to head down the "slippery rope" back to 1950's era bigotry I also don't want to live in a society where one cannot express their opinion - no matter how intolerable those opinions may be.

This is the same dichotomy of decisions that exists in the holocaust-denial laws in some European nations.

You tell me. What's a libertarian to do?

Almighty Colin

04-25-2003, 06:08 AM

I agree with you guys on this. These guys are bigots.

Senators making statements that conjure up images of 1948 Mississippi KKK rallies or Henry Ford styled secret jewish cabals from "The International Jew" are offensive and, well, inappropriate. I wouldn't say them myself.

I don't expect that we'll have a jewish quota system in colleges or that we're headed for segregated restaurants again at any time soon as a result. But, yes, history does show such things often do start this way.

And if we stop them from saying these things? That's pretty offensive too. We know where that ends up too.

A "Third Reich" style world requires both these factors.

I guess we're pretty balanced where we are. Don't legislate it. Speak out if you disagree with it.

Forced conformity is a strange thing when it's for the greatest common good.

Almighty Colin

04-25-2003, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 24 2003, 08:40 PM
just leave the dark side, you'll be much happier with us :)
There is no party for me. I don't like the choices I have to make.

Libertarian. Love the principles but I rather suspect that if went all the way we'd find the invisible hand needed some guidance. I think the military would be too small. Read their party platform. It's simplet. Let's start getting rid of laws!

Democrat. Great on social issues overall. Certainly in keeping with the spirit of freedom and equality. I like the new emphasis on "fiscal responsibility". I don't like the socialized economy. Too much Marxism. I don't want to be more like Europe. Foreign policy? Too many Dems were opposed to the war for my taste. Too much internationalism. Not enough self-determination. Weapons proliferation is to me the most important security issue of the past five decades. We've already been getting it wrong for half a century. Let's start to get it right.

Republican. Too controlling socially. My personal life is none of your business. Thanks. Might be taking over the Democrat's old role of big government. Rugged individualism is here. That's good. We're America. Not West Europe. Bush is right. Stop the weapons proliferation.

When taken in totality, I don't like any of these choices nor any of the others. What's left? The system we have. Sort of like specialized interest parties that each make their case and we end up somewhere in between. I like it.

dig420

04-25-2003, 07:51 AM

you say that more and better speech is the best answer to hateful speech, and I agree with you. However, when the dissenting voices to hate speech comes down on someone's head you say we're forcing them to be 'politically correct', whatever that's supposed to mean.

I say they're being forced to stand by or retract their comments. It's not the democrats fault that conservatives can't defend themselves, they apologize every time (oh, I didn't REALLY mean that....)

and what is rugged individualism? You mean like Clinton coming straight from the trailer park to POTUS? Or chicken hawks screaming for war? There is no rugged individualism in the republican party today. Corporate welfare is bankrupting this country.

Almighty Colin

04-25-2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 25 2003, 06:59 AM
However, when the dissenting voices to hate speech comes down on someone's head you say we're forcing them to be 'politically correct', whatever that's supposed to mean.

My usage of the term "politically correct" wasn't mean as insultory. In the content I am using it, is is exactly the opposite.

I said:

1. How far should we take free speech?
2. How far should we be politically correct?

To me, these are both positive things. The question if how far to limit or permit either of them especially in so much as the interests of one can only be advanced by encroaching on the other. I don't know the answer to that. It is not at all clear to me.

BTW ... What's your opinion on Moran's statements?

Last edited by Colin at Apr 25 2003, 07:42 AM

Almighty Colin

04-25-2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 25 2003, 06:59 AM
It's not the democrats fault that conservatives can't defend themselves, they apologize every time (oh, I didn't REALLY mean that....)
Though the Republicans lead this category by far, the Democrats do have their moments.

"By no means did I intend or believe that members of the Jewish community are united in their support for a possible war with Iraq. I certainly never meant, nor do I believe, to imply that the Jewish community is responsible for or should be blamed for this war." - James Moran

And ... What about Robert Byrd? The ex-KKK member is a Democratic Senator and fond of using the word "nigger".

Last edited by Colin at Apr 25 2003, 07:49 AM

Torone

04-25-2003, 08:49 AM

You all miss one important point:
"I'll have the (n-words) voting Democrat for the next 100 years."...LBJ
And of course the 'white (n-word)' comments of Senator Robert 'Sheets' Byrd.
Of course the rhetoric against a certain Hispanic circuit court nominee...
None of which made a big fuss.

The fact is that the Libs have their own 'destruction machine'; namely, the TV network news. The fact is that they actually employ people to watch for things like this. The fact is that they wish to use the 'free speech' thing themselves while denying it to others.

Further, if you check it out, the sodomy laws which are being discussed are very old and were probably passed during a period of Democratic rule within those states.

I do not agree with those laws. At the same time, I believe that both sides of Congress should be judged not on what they might say; but on what they actually DO. If they VOTE harmfully, then they need to be VOTED out. If, like a couple of recent cases, they actually commit illegal acts, then the rest of Congress needs to remove them. Under NO circumstances should a Senator or a Representative be removed or forced to resign over something they said in public or private. That would amount to the complete destruction of the 1st Amendment, since this IS Congress, which "shall make no laws...etc.

As for private individuals, only the gov't is constrained from interfering with their 'free speech'. Think about this 'protected speech' thing. It's a back-door way to limit free speech. Who decides what is 'protected'...?

Last edited by Torone at Apr 25 2003, 07:59 AM

Torone

04-25-2003, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 25 2003, 07:38 AM
And ... What about Robert Byrd? The ex-KKK member is a Democratic Senator and fond of using the word "nigger".
Much has been made of David Duke; but where is he right now?

They send theirs to political office. We send ours to prison.

Last edited by Torone at Apr 25 2003, 08:04 AM

Almighty Colin

04-25-2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Torone@Apr 25 2003, 08:03 AM
Much has been made of David Duke; but where is he right now?

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/duke.jpg

Almighty Colin

04-25-2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Vick@Apr 24 2003, 06:13 PM
The world is coming to an end .... sooner than we anticipated

Click Here for Hemispheric Dominance Inventory Test (http://www.mtsu.edu/~devstud/advisor/hemispheric_dominance.html)

"You responded as a right brained person to 12 questions, and you responded as a left brained person to 7 questions. "

It could be said I'm in my right mind for the most part
I was 10/9.

Torone

04-25-2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 25 2003, 08:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 25 2003, 08:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Apr 25 2003, 08:03 AM
Much has been made of David Duke; but where is he right now?

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/duke.jpg[/b][/quote]
Actually, he IS in prison...

wig

04-25-2003, 10:46 AM

Colin, Didn't feel like quoting all of what you said, but I think your posts are right on!

I too find myself on the fence. In the end, I try to just make the best choices I can in all the aspects of life.

Fuck trying to change the world.... just roll with what comes and try to position ones self accordingly.

PornoDoggy

04-25-2003, 10:48 AM

You all miss one important point:
"I'll have the (n-words) voting Democrat for the next 100 years."...LBJ
And of course the 'white (n-word)' comments of Senator Robert 'Sheets' Byrd.
Of course the rhetoric against a certain Hispanic circuit court nominee...
None of which made a big fuss.

First of all, you really have to be pretty stupid to use the race card to attack the left's objection to a "certain Hispanic circuit court nominee", because few, if any, on the left are objecting to his appointment simply because he is Hispanic. It's the Republicans using race in this instance to avoid discussing relevant issues.

Second, Senator Byrd - like Senator Helms, Governor Wallace, and any number of politicians from that era, evolved past their Klan heritage into something else entirely. I've read a little bit on the accusations against Byrd. Many of them center on letters written to the Klan offering his continuing support after he resigned from the Klan in the 1940s. There are others that reference his opposition to the desegregation of the military under President Truman. Hardly relevant, considering that Lott was pandering to the Klan and the White Citizen's Council-type folks well into the 1990s, some 50 years or so after Bryd's so-called Klan activities.

LBJ and Byrd used the N word. Whoopie-fucking-doo. Let's see ... a Texan born in 1908, a West Virginian born in 1917 - how suprising is that? I had a pair of grandfathers born in the 1890s, and great-uncles born anywhere from the early 1880s until the early 1900s, and they all used the word. My father and my uncles all used the word, although less frequently than my grandfathers did.

And Colin - I agree with you that people should be free to say what they want. I guess my point is that when someone like Lott comes out and says the world sure would have been better if we would have elected this bigot and kept them n****rs in their place, I would hope the general public reacts with the same outcry we would see if a Senator proposed making Joseph Gobel's birthday a national holiday.

Almighty Colin

04-25-2003, 11:11 AM

Wig. :rokk:

PD,

I agree with you, if I understand you correctly, on not holding people to their political positions from decades ago. Even some of the guys that used to be NAZI's aren't anymore. I'm not being facetious. Times change. People change.

I think we should be careful to hold people in both parties to the same standards. If we're truly interested in making such statements on the basis of such lofty and noble standards of equality we should make them equally both against people in "our parties" but also in the other. It's quite evident that whenever a Democrat makes such a statement the Republicans by and large jump down their throat and vice versa.

Members of each party can go back and forth trying to discredit the other based upon their best guesses of what the person's intent is. Seems to me that people often think the members of their own party are more honest, moral, and ethical than those of the other. Cloudy vision results from such nonsense.

Almighty Colin

04-25-2003, 01:03 PM

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/lottyo.jpg

04-25-2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 25 2003, 07:19 AM

I think we should be careful to hold people in both parties to the same standards. If we're truly interested in making such statements on the basis of such lofty and noble standards of equality we should make them equally both against people in "our parties" but also in the other.

but this is what politics is.

politics is based largely on discrediting the other side(s). the side that succeeds in painting a worse picture of the other side wins.

Members of each party can go back and forth trying to discredit the other based upon their best guesses of what the person's intent is.

i would not say "best guesses of what the persons intent is". i would say that politicians try to discredit by sucessfully characterizing or mischaracterizing their intentions.

thats politics.

Seems to me that people often think the members of their own party are more honest, moral, and ethical than those of the other. Cloudy vision results from such nonsense.

i think we all do this. we are all biased because we have political beliefs. we cant possibly look at any politician objectively if we already have a political view. having a political view on issues causes us to view those politicians, actions, statements or remarks that are consistent with our own views or beliefs in a more favorable or positive light.

dig420

04-25-2003, 08:57 PM

The best you can do is choose your vote according to the party ethos.

One one side we have religious zealots, book burners, brainwashed redneck nationalists and secret police. On the other side you have the Democrats.

What's so hard about that choice? :P

04-26-2003, 04:02 AM

One one side we have religious zealots, book burners, brainwashed redneck nationalists and secret police. On the other side you have the Democrats.

can you direct me to the nearest reprogramming depot?
:zoinks:

Almighty Colin

04-26-2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by JR@Apr 26 2003, 03:10 AM

can you direct me to the nearest reprogramming depot?
:zoinks:
http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/reprogram.gif

Almighty Colin

04-26-2003, 05:19 AM

JR,

Have you ever read the Devil's Dictionary? It's a satirical dictionary written by Ambrose Bierce who was known for his Civil War stories [he lived at that time]. I think you'd like it.

POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

POLITICIAN, n.
An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.

My favorite was always this one:

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

Last edited by Colin at Apr 26 2003, 04:35 AM

Almighty Colin

04-26-2003, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by JR@Apr 25 2003, 05:03 PM
Members of each party can go back and forth trying to discredit the other based upon their best guesses of what the person's intent is.

i would not say "best guesses of what the persons intent is". i would say that politicians try to discredit by sucessfully characterizing or mischaracterizing their intentions.

I'm talking about "we the people" though. Not the politicians themselves.

I don't think Alex would be attempting to mischaracterize Bush, for example.
I think Alex believes Bush is bad and will ruin the country and hence the world if he stays in power.

I agree that political strategists are excellent at mischaracterizing politicians and probably do that more than the politicians themselves. There's certainly a healthy dose of those that just don't like the other person ot party and therefor guess that person's intentions as disingenuous.

Last edited by Colin at Apr 26 2003, 04:34 AM

Torone

04-26-2003, 06:27 AM

Pd,
You mist be totally blind. Either that, or you are the thirstiest kool-aid drinker in the Liberal base.

Firstly, you seem to misunderstand the Democrat oppisition to that Hispanic and the reason it is a race issue. They paint themselves as the party of minorities; but they are really only the party of those minority people who believe in and want something for nothing. If they were truly the party of minorities they would be helping him.

Second, my point is that there was no comparable fuss raised about Bird's remarks (which happened less than 2 years ago) or LBJ's statement (which was revealed less than 2 years ago).

What's the matter? You don't think the Liberals have a chance on a level field (i.e. one where the same rules apply to both sides and any statement not preceded by "In my opinion" or "I believe" must be documentably true)? Frankly, I believe that they would soon fade into obscurity and become equal to the party represented by Pat Buchanan...

wig

04-26-2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 25 2003, 08:05 PM
The best you can do is choose your vote according to the party ethos.

One one side we have religious zealots, book burners, brainwashed redneck nationalists and secret police. On the other side you have the Democrats.

What's so hard about that choice? :P
Let's be fair...

On one side we have religious zealots, book burners, brainwashed redneck nationalists and secret police.

On the other side you have the socialists, communists, collectivists, radical environmentalists and brainwashed underachievers that believe the world owes them something for nothing.

Dig, you should at least be objective if you are going to point out extremes.

The smart people, IMHO, can point out the shit on both sides.

What's so hard about understanding that?

Last edited by wig at Apr 26 2003, 07:49 AM

Forest

04-26-2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by wig@Apr 26 2003, 04:47 AM

brainwashed redneck nationalists

you should really speak nicer of 12clicks

Last edited by Forest at Apr 26 2003, 04:54 AM

dig420

04-26-2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by wig+Apr 26 2003, 07:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wig @ Apr 26 2003, 07:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--dig420@Apr 25 2003, 08:05 PM
The best you can do is choose your vote according to the party ethos.

One one side we have religious zealots, book burners, brainwashed redneck nationalists and secret police. On the other side you have the Democrats.

What's so hard about that choice? :P
Let's be fair...

On one side we have religious zealots, book burners, brainwashed redneck nationalists and secret police.

On the other side you have the socialists, communists, collectivists, radical environmentalists and brainwashed underachievers that believe the world owes them something for nothing.

Dig, you should at least be objective if you are going to point out extremes.

The smart people, IMHO, can point out the shit on both sides.

What's so hard about understanding that?[/b][/quote]
and what's so hard about understanding that communists AREN'T CAPITALISTS and have no love for Democrats? To a true communist or socialist there is no difference between a Republican and a Democrat, they hate our capitalist system.

Why do Republicans have to lie and distort in order to debate? We don't. Pat Robertson is evil in FACT, we don't have to exaggerate. Bush has set up secret courts, we don't have to lie about anything. It's right out there for anyone who actually cares about being right rather than winning a pissing match. Radical environmentalists? You mean the people who refuse to stop bitching about toxic chemicals being dumped into streams and such things? I HATE those guys, much better to let our country's natural resources get raped by anyone with the bank to buy a politician right?

The KKK votes Republican. The Moral Majority votes Republican. Look at who your friends are. You may say that both parties have evil men, and you would be right, but there is definitely such a thing as choosing the lesser of two evils, and there is no question which is the worst evil in our two party system.

When are you people going to get tired of making excuses for your evil, corrupt party and just do the right thing and switch? Are you afraid that means you 'lose' the argument?

Almighty Colin

04-26-2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 26 2003, 05:29 PM
Pat Robertson is evil in FACT, we don't have to exaggerate.
http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/sharpton.gif

dig420

04-26-2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 26 2003, 07:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 26 2003, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--dig420@Apr 26 2003, 05:29 PM
Pat Robertson is evil in FACT, we don't have to exaggerate.
http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/sharpton.gif[/b][/quote]
yep, and he's REAL POWERFUL in the Democratic party, a real vote getter.

Forest

04-26-2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 26 2003, 04:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 26 2003, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--dig420@Apr 26 2003, 05:29 PM
Pat Robertson is evil in FACT, we don't have to exaggerate.
http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/sharpton.gif[/b][/quote]
now that guy scares me

the biggest bigiot and shit stirer of the races that there is

I watched him in his younger years when i lived in nyc

dig420

04-26-2003, 08:18 PM

that response does underline one of the biggest planks in the Republican platform though: Racism. The fear of a black planet. White men terrified of dealing with minorities. I'm not scared.

Things start to look bad, just show a pic of Al Sharpton, Rodney King or Willie Horton. Everybody knows the Repubs know how to keep the darkies in line.

Almighty Colin

04-26-2003, 08:29 PM

Dig,

You say "Look at who your friends are".

Who are you talking to?

Both Wig and I are neither Democrat nor Republican. We're middle of the road. Don't think either party better than the other. You shouldn't confuse not bowing down to one party and considering the other evil with Republicans being "our friends". Sorry but I just cant believe that half the nation is evil and the other half good, that half the nation is honest and the other half corrupt and that the leading divider of these people is which major party they belong to.

From where I sit I see equal numbers of idiots and savants and charlatans in both those parties. I think both those parties have something to offer America and only in combination - systematically removing the extremes - do we get the best results.

Amusing that you think someone who has opinions that aren't lock-stepped into a party line is "trying to win a pissing match". The truth is that neither Wig nor I has a pissing match to win. How could I win? You believe that your good old boy network is honest and the other good old boy network is liars. You believe your party is good and the other evil. Your party is trying to do good for the people and the other is corrupt and only has selfish motivations at heart.

Come on, man. There's a current Democratic senator that is an ex-KKK member! Al Sharpton is every bit as racist and whacky and biblical as Pat Robertson. You know it's true. How many anti-Jewish remarks from the Democratic party does it take to equal the anti-black ones from the Republican.

Look around. Powell is the highest ranking minority in US government history. A minority woman is National Security Advisor. The man in charge is making minority hires [the best people for the job] at the highest levels of the administration.

I try to see the good of each party rather than the bad. I thin you're seeing only the good of one and only the bad of the other.

Forest

04-26-2003, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 26 2003, 04:26 PM
that response does underline one of the biggest planks in the Republican platform though: Racism. The fear of a black planet. White men terrified of dealing with minorities. I'm not scared.

Things start to look bad, just show a pic of Al Sharpton, Rodney King or Willie Horton. Everybody knows the Repubs know how to keep the darkies in line.
i was speaking of him as a Person

not a race

Almighty Colin

04-26-2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 26 2003, 07:26 PM
that response does underline one of the biggest planks in the Republican platform though: Racism. The fear of a black planet. White men terrified of dealing with minorities. I'm not scared.

Things start to look bad, just show a pic of Al Sharpton, Rodney King or Willie Horton. Everybody knows the Repubs know how to keep the darkies in line.
http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/powell.gif http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/rice.jpg

Forest

04-26-2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 26 2003, 04:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 26 2003, 04:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--dig420@Apr 26 2003, 07:26 PM
that response does underline one of the biggest planks in the Republican platform though: Racism. The fear of a black planet. White men terrified of dealing with minorities. I'm not scared.

Things start to look bad, just show a pic of Al Sharpton, Rodney King or Willie Horton. Everybody knows the Repubs know how to keep the darkies in line.
http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/powell.gif http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/rice.jpg[/b][/quote]
Thanx Colin

I was just going to say

Newt fucking grinch (lol) sacres me more than sharpeton does

Rolo

04-26-2003, 10:14 PM

I have a problem with all politicians...

Politicians think they are working when they are making new laws or more bureaucracy... no matter what party they are from, then its about *control* of the masses and sometime *ego trips*.

Yes, I understand that a civilized society needs laws and probably also some bureaucracy. But most of the real serious problems we have had have been taken care off decades ago, but still politicians find new things/issues etc. they need to control. Just look at how much the number of laws have increased in the last 20 years! Its rare for politicians to take a look at old laws and try and improve them - instead they make new laws with *their* names on them.

New generations of politicians will continue to make new laws, because that is what they are told by the politicians before them etc. They think their name will be remember, but it will only last until a new generation of politicians make new laws.

We should make a law that politicians only could update or remove old laws - no more new laws. That way we could have less and less laws, a more transparent goverment, and more freedom too the people!

BTW. I chart high on the libertarian scale (http://www.buildinganempire.com/politics/results.html#Rolo) :rolleyes:

dig420

04-27-2003, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 26 2003, 07:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 26 2003, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--dig420@Apr 26 2003, 07:26 PM
that response does underline one of the biggest planks in the Republican platform though: Racism. The fear of a black planet. White men terrified of dealing with minorities. I'm not scared.

Things start to look bad, just show a pic of Al Sharpton, Rodney King or Willie Horton. Everybody knows the Repubs know how to keep the darkies in line.
http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/powell.gif http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/rice.jpg[/b][/quote]
JBB

just barely black, totally uninvolved with any minority issues, tokens.

You can pretend you're even-steven politically Colin, but the fact is you primarily post in defense of conservatives. You can also pretend that the parties are the same, but you're smart enough to know that's not the truth. It's 'Religous Right' not 'Religious Middle' or 'Religious WishyWashy', it's Religious RIGHT. The people who want to ban Tom Sawyer, conjoin church and state and teach creationism in school are Republicans. The people who drape themselves in a flag and call you a traitor for questioning the govt. are Republicans. The people who created and passed the Patriot Act are Republicans. The people who allow corporations to draft the bills they present before congress are Republicans. The bubbas in the white sheets vote Republican. Conservative commentators nearly unanimously don't want oppostion in their forums for a reason. Did you see how they cried when the conservatives were getting destroyed night after night on Crossfire? hrm.. now Crossfire is on for 30 minutes instead of an hour in a worse time slot.

There is a difference. I'll say it again: look who's on your side. It means something. Conservatives are against freedom of speech, against freedom for any religion except white bread christianity, against freedom of the press and against a free mind. They are xenophobic and homophobic. They are evil. Vote Democrat :nyanya:

Torone

04-27-2003, 12:29 AM

Uh, Dig,
The only proper response you can make is to post pictures of your party's minority appointees.

BTW, as for the socialists, communists, etc...Check out your party.

Almighty Colin

04-27-2003, 05:45 AM

Hi Dig,

You have to understand. I am against curtailing free speech, banning books, the religious right, and the Patriot Act.

For me, there are a few basic principles which are important to me:

1. The system works. The American form of government is a good one. Constitutional Republic
with strong checks and balances on individual and government power.
2. The rule of law
3. Libertarian ideals

In just this thread, I stated that "Though the Republicans lead this category [racist remarks] by far, the Democrats do have their moments" and gave a few examples. I view that as a statement demonstrating that there are examples of racism in both camps but a statement primarily AGAINST Republicans as I said they lead the category. I then pointed out David Duke's book on "Jewish Supremacism". On the whole, I think I've primarily made anti-Republican remarks today. If you choose to see them as any different I'd say that is not a fair assessment at all. When I debate with Torone or MikeAI, they don't claim I'm "primarily a Democrat". What's the difference?

Though I would vote against the Patriot Act if there were a referendum, I think it wouldn't be the end of the world, that it's keeping in line with other legislation passed in times of perceived crisis in the US, and that if passed it wouldn't effect my life. I think it's quite possible that it would come and go just like many other such acts passed as a reaction to say WW I or WW II. Those are two different ideals in conflict. My position is perfectly public. The Patriot Act is against my libertarian philosophy. The Patriot Act is not the beginning of an Orwellian America/Oceana that would spell the end of all liberties. There are issues of national security which may make such an act justifiable and historically that has been the case. Now that I've said that let's see if I'm labelled a conservative or a liberal today.

I don't think either party has a broad and consistent enough theme that I can sign up to either one. Different people have different agendas and within any one particular party there are a quite wide range of political views and personalities. Dick Gephardt, Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton are three completely different politicians. I can't judge them as "Democrats". I judge them on their individual merits. Parties change in time to reflect political reality. Parties don't dictate the borderline. People dictate the borderline. The libertarian party does reflect my philosophical views but I think by itself it would be a disaster if taken 100%.

Checks and balances on government and individual power are the guiding principle of the Constitution. Here is our strength.

"Just barely black"? WTF, man. I don't even think you believe you own words. Secretary of State is hardly a "token" position. Powell is the highest ranking minority in the history of the United States. That you would care to denigrate him on the basis of his "percentage of blackness" seems to me a sign that you are only pro-minority for Democrats but not so for Republicans. Isn't the principle more important than the party? <-_<

I liked Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. They are men who did their job. Both in character and
deeds they have their faults and they have their strengths. You can tell the story of any of their presidencies in such a way that they either saved the country or ruined it. I rather suspect the truth, for what's it's worth, is halfway in between those views for each of these men.

Last edited by Colin at Apr 27 2003, 04:55 AM

Almighty Colin

04-27-2003, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 26 2003, 11:14 PM
now Crossfire is on for 30 minutes instead of an hour in a worse time slot.

And they cancelled Donahue too!

dig420

04-27-2003, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 27 2003, 05:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 27 2003, 05:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--dig420@Apr 26 2003, 11:14 PM
now Crossfire is on for 30 minutes instead of an hour in a worse time slot.

And they cancelled Donahue too![/b][/quote]
that's right! It's a right-wing conspiracy!

Almighty Colin

04-27-2003, 06:15 AM

Dig,

Do you ever sleep?

dig420

04-27-2003, 06:29 AM

Republican Presidents are obligated to nominate conservative judges, and stump for Republican senatorial and gubernatorial candidates. Although you have to weigh the individual merits of each prospective candidate for any position, his party affiliation still should be your main criteria, because no matter how good you think the guy might be, he's still gonna have to pay his debts once he gets into office. The Republicans are indebted to all the wrong constituencies. Do you want to bring back the era of small government, states rights Repubs? Vote Democrat. Watch how fast the Repubs stop pandering to the lowest common denominator as soon as it stops winning them elections. Your man Shrub was making a lot of noise about bipartisanship and appointing a democrat to the cabinet and whatnot when he was running for election, and then immediately veered hard to the right once he was in office. Why? He had to pay his debts to the people who got him in office.

I liked Reagan until Iran-Contra, imho that was REAL treason against this nation. It was also pretty well established after he left office that his campaign team was in contact with the Iranian hostage takers and they made a deal to release them only after Reagan was inaugurated. If true, this is just too evil to tolerate.

Bush Sr. seemed like a pretty good man and I have nothing but love for Clinton for the most part. Shrub, I just hate him. He's awful. The worst President in my lifetime for all the reasons I stated above. Goddam I can't believe we gave the Presidency to a born-again Christian in the 21st century. It's like we're going backwards. He probably thinks war in the Middle East is going to bring about the Rapture.

dig420

04-27-2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 27 2003, 05:23 AM
Dig,

Do you ever sleep?
yeah I'm about to right now, if I can.... :zzz:

Almighty Colin

04-27-2003, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Torone@Apr 26 2003, 05:35 AM
Firstly, you seem to misunderstand the Democrat oppisition to that Hispanic and the reason it is a race issue.

Two words. Dade County. Bush is going to beat the Democrats to death with the Estrada/Latino issue when he campaigns in South Florida. Dems made a bad political move on this one.

Last edited by Colin at Apr 27 2003, 06:33 PM

04-28-2003, 02:18 AM

This below image is still my favorite illustration of why political debates cannot be won and why there is no one "right" answer... only beliefs and opinions. political debates have not changed since the early days of civilization itself. Plato and others debated the very same issues 2400 years ago with no greater success than people have in the year 2003. the same concerns, the same fears, the same theories, the same worries, the same predictions of how it will all go wrong if we continue down the path of "XYZ".... the same emotions and the same confusing of opinion with fact.

Yet here we are. still going strong. never perfect as no country is, but clearly doing ok.

We live in a Democratic Republic that is a system of agreement built on dissagreement. there is no right or wrong between Democrats and Republicans. there is only successful and unsuccessful debate. the winning argument does not have to be "right". ask OJ. It amazes me that people can believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. its probably rational behavior... but its very illogical. it is self comforting i guess and part of a process of self affirmation, that serves to fortify the walls of beliefs that we build around ourselves that protect us from having to carefully weigh and consider an overwhelming amount of information and make an incalculable number of decisions everyday. easier to just tow the party line and take the good with the bad.... afterall, for any shot fired at either party, there is always something to fire back. Much easier to argue about nothing and use mindless rhetoric about which President can't spell and which lied under oath than to argue about something as massively complicated as financial markets, economies, macro-economics and global politics.

Anyone that thinks they are "right" in their views or political opinions or beliefs are acting logically and probably normally... but i think that the reality is that if you cannot allow yourself to see both sides as objectively as possible, then it cannot be logical to conclude that your views or opinions are more correct than others. The magic of the system we have however is that it fully takes this into account and in the end, it is the ranting of those at opposite ends of the spectrum that allow us to define the center.

Colin and i are very similar in our political views. We understand and agree on the need for Republicans and Democrats. But i think we both place our faith in the system, not individuals. Its the system itself, that has worked extraordinarilly well since its beginning and continues to work well. If you took a micro view of the system you would see a lot you dont agree with and a lot of things you think should be changed. Step back and take a look at the system as a whole and you see an economic and political system that has created the worlds only super power and the worlds strongest economy. it has not functioned perfectly all the time... but it has proven to be incredibly resilient, self correcting and effective.

to argue that "republicans are better because..." or "democrats are better because..." is just silly. if the arguement was strong enough for either statement, they would be in power indefinately.

http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/woman.gif

Last edited by JR at Apr 27 2003, 10:43 PM

dig420

04-28-2003, 04:46 AM

Bullshit. If you're voting with Santorum, Jerry Falwell and David Duke, you're wrong. End of story.

04-28-2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 12:54 AM
Bullshit. If you're voting with Santorum, Jerry Falwell and David Duke, you're wrong. End of story.
how do you define wrong?

is Jerry Fallwells mother wrong if she votes for her son?
is anyone wrong that votes for someone they believe in?
is anyone wrong to vote for someone that best represents their views?
is anyone wrong that does what they believe to be the right thing?
is anyone wrong that expresses themselves within the framework of the Constitution and legal voting process?

how do you decide who is wrong?
who decides who is wrong?

if i would be "wrong" to vote for Jerry Fallwell... how do you PROVE i am wrong?

dig420

04-28-2003, 07:21 AM

if you don't know why it's wrong to vote for Jerry Falwell, there are no words that will clarify it for you.

slavdogg

04-28-2003, 07:28 AM

dig, is it right to vote for Al Sharpton ??

wig

04-28-2003, 10:44 AM

Colin, as always... clear, rational, logical articulation of the real world. (JR - you too!)

Slav, good question!

Dig, was too busy planting my garden to reply to your piss.... oh, that's right... you don't piss. just the rest of us. :nyanya:

04-28-2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 03:29 AM
if you don't know why it's wrong to vote for Jerry Falwell, there are no words that will clarify it for you.
i did not make the remark that it was "wrong", you did.

you are telling people what is right and wrong. i am just curious how those decisions are made. you object to people telling you what is right and wrong... yet freely tell others what is right and wrong.

how do you decide what is right and wrong? you are telling me that it is "wrong" to vote for someone. how can that be "wrong"? This is an excellent chance to make your case.

Dig... the point is this... "wrong" in politics is your opinion. its not fact. You are not saying "it may be a mistake" , "i would not agree with that choice" , "i think thats a poor choice" ... in which case, MANY would agree with you. You are saying that you are right and anyone else that makes that choice is "wrong"

You may believe your opinion to be fact but i dont think others will agree with you. You perceive the world. you interpret the information you see, hear, read, feel, touch, smell etc.... you then make conclusions based on what you believe to be consistent with your own ideas about what makes the world turns. We all do that.

What you are doing is the equivelent of looking at that image that shows both an old woman and a young girl and seeing only one person. You see the information that supports your idea of what you see... and you refuse to listen to or accept that there is another person in the same image. Similarly, other people are often arguing that they see the opposite and refuse to see what you see. I believe that in two party politics, there is two people in the image and there is all the information right there to show both.

... we all just need to open our eyes a little and be a little more receptive. when you have boiled everything down to "you are wrong, i am right and its just that fucking simple" ... you cannot possibly be seeing all sides of the arguement clearly or weighing them evenly.

PornoDoggy

04-28-2003, 12:02 PM

I agree with the idea that voting for Jerry Falwell is wrong in my opinion, because I don't believe in much of what he stands for. Much of what he stands for is wrong in my personal system of values.

But some of the stuff that I'm reading in this thread amuses me greatly. It takes a genuinely shallow mind to believe in the way that the GOP is playing the race card over the judicial nominee. I'm not personally convinced that this tactic will play very well to anyone outside the choir loft. I think it's quite likely that a great many people will recognize it for the cynical ploy that it is, and a number of non-Hispanics (pro-choice advocates in particular) may be offended enough to counterbalance any gains the GOP may realize from it.

The attempt to depict Sharpton as some kind of counter-Robertson is at least equally, if not far more shallow. It surely is pathetic, however.

And while I agree to a point with the very philosophical approach to the whole issue of politics put forth by Colin and JR, there is something about it that bothers me. The thing about it is, in REALITY if you are staring at a figure in the shadows it will, to use your example, ultimately turn out to be an old woman or a young girl.

What seems to get lost when we wax poetically about the beauty of the system we live under is that the folks agitating for a point that may not be popular today are equally vital to that same system. The example that gets frequently used - "Well, there's no need to worry about the Patriot Act because if there are abuses we will change them - we've done it before" - is correct on its face. However, it ignores the fact that it was changed because "lunatics", "pinkos", "alarmists", etc. screamed and yelled and whooped and hollered for years before anyone even believed that abuses were occurring.

Almighty Colin

04-28-2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 28 2003, 11:10 AM
The attempt to depict Sharpton as some kind of counter-Robertson is at least equally, if not far more shallow. It surely is pathetic, however.

Why? Sharpton is every bit the lunatic fringe racist that Pat Robertson is.

04-28-2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 28 2003, 08:10 AM
What seems to get lost when we wax poetically about the beauty of the system we live under is that the folks agitating for a point that may not be popular today are equally vital to that same system. The example that gets frequently used - "Well, there's no need to worry about the Patriot Act because if there are abuses we will change them - we've done it before" - is correct on its face. However, it ignores the fact that it was changed because "lunatics", "pinkos", "alarmists", etc. screamed and yelled and whooped and hollered for years before anyone even believed that abuses were occurring.
PD, i think that for the most part we agree. i think that the fears, concerns, paranoia, debate, arguing etc are all very necessary to the functioning of the political system. I think its necessary in a two party system to yell "Bush is an idiot" and "vote for Reverand Al Sharpton because he can definately run a country"... i think that all the fighting, arguing and debating that would follow are necessary to the success of the system as a whole.

thats the greater paradox to me.

- a person that is balanced in his views, should be in the middle.
- if all people were balanced and in the middle, the political system would grind to a halt and cease to function.

Just as Colin said when he remarked that he usually finds himself in the middle because he can see both sides of the argument. i think that would not be healthy as a whole because it leads to indecision and innaction. As it is, we are left to choose from the stronger arguments or at least we can vote against the weaker arguments.

i think thats healthy.

to me, its also a bigger question of how do i really want to live my life. i personally refuse to live in fear, being paranoid and insecure about "what might be". a lot of things "might be". life is risky... and no matter what, we will all die anyway. i may get hit by a car or struck by lightening, or stabbed in a night club. ... i may get accidentally arrested for Child porn or something else. a lot of things may happen and no amount of worrying will diminish the odds of every possibility becoming reality and increase the quality of my life.

I think that most of the risks/fears people talk about politically like Homeland Security - i.e. "yeah, will how will you feel if you were the one who...." are acceptable. I have not seen evidence that they are not.

I also don't think that any policies that are not popular cannot be reversed had they become politically unpopular. To date, i think that the fact that this organization exists indicates that the majority of people are willing to accept it. Thats how the system works and i accept that. Other than that, i am going to continue to work, travel, invest money and be happy with my wife. When i think that the USA is threatening to make that impossible for me, i will leave.

We are all gonna die anyway.
In the end, all we can do is smile and wait.

Almighty Colin

04-28-2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 28 2003, 11:10 AM
What seems to get lost when we wax poetically about the beauty of the system we live under is that the folks agitating for a point that may not be popular today are equally vital to that same system. The example that gets frequently used - "Well, there's no need to worry about the Patriot Act because if there are abuses we will change them - we've done it before" - is correct on its face. However, it ignores the fact that it was changed because "lunatics", "pinkos", "alarmists", etc. screamed and yelled and whooped and hollered for years before anyone even believed that abuses were occurring.
I think it's quite sane to question the Patriot Act and whether it is a good law or not. It's quite another to think that the end of our society is here, that the Constitution is now a worthless document, that the Republicans are secretly taking over, that America is now on an unstoppable road to ruin, that the system of government we are living under is thus null and void and that we're heading towards an Orwellian finish and and are just a little behind schedule on 1984.

I agree with your premise. "The system" does require alarmists in order to be most effectively resilient. Now, the thing about the alarmists is that they are almost always wrong. The reality hardly ever turns out to be as bad as the predictions. The worst case is just that. It's not likely nor does it hardly ever occur.

I'd rather be right than wrong but necessary. But hey, thats just me.

dig420

04-28-2003, 04:47 PM

so... we need the alarmists to hold off the power grabbing Republicans in order to keep them from turning our country into a police state, but actually the alarmists are wrong and crazy and we don't need them because the Republicans aren't really power-mad?

No, Al Sharpton isn't nearly as bad as Falwell. Sharpton is an attention whore who seeks power and can't get it, who primarily seeks to redress issues of injustice towards colored folk. Falwell is a religious freak who sets the tune that Republicans dance to, and his agenda is to outlaw blowjobs, Huckleberry Finn and Evolution.

dig420

04-28-2003, 04:51 PM

I think it's quite sane to question the Patriot Act and whether it is a good law or not. It's quite another to think that the end of our society is here, that the Constitution is now a worthless document, that the Republicans are secretly taking over, that America is now on an unstoppable road to ruin, that the system of government we are living under is thus null and void and that we're heading towards an Orwellian finish and and are just a little behind schedule on 1984.
------------

if your favored party is so evil that it's got a large % of the public believing this is true, why are you still voting for them? Why do you still defend them? Are you just committed to them no matter how evil they get, no matter what they do? At what point do you say to yourself 'I was wrong, these fuckers are just no good'? Does that point even exist with you?

Almighty Colin

04-28-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 03:55 PM
so... we need the alarmists to hold off the power grabbing Republicans in order to keep them from turning our country into a police state, but actually the alarmists are wrong and crazy and we don't need them because the Republicans aren't really power-mad?

There are alarmists in both parties. Let's not make it a party thing. Now, Dig. You think you'll be living in a police state because of Patriot Act? Only Republicans pass such laws?

Let's test ya for bias.

Did you think you'd be living in a police state if the Communications Decency Act had passed?

Almighty Colin

04-28-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 03:59 PM
if your favored party is so evil that it's got a large % of the public believing this is true, why are you still voting for them? Why do you still defend them? Are you just committed to them no matter how evil they get, no matter what they do? At what point do you say to yourself 'I was wrong, these fuckers are just no good'? Does that point even exist with you?
Dig,

I'm sorry I don't share your view that I have to belong to a party and cheer it on like it's a football game. I don't hold a chosen party platform point close to heart that I refuse to see there is any point but the Politburo one. At election time I don't sit in front of the tv with a beer cheering each Democratic Party win and Republican loss. You don't get it. I just don't view the world that way.

I don't have a favored party. I have no party to defend. I am committed to no party.

That's you, brother. Not me. Don't confuse.

Almighty Colin

04-28-2003, 05:06 PM

As far as Estrada, I think there are people that view such an event through many lenses. As far as Latinos, some will hold their political party status as an important self-image. To others, their self-image will be dominated by the concept of "Latino". Some will be mixed.

I think if you work out the possibilities, it is more likely that neutral Latinos will vote Republican than any other change as a result of the Estrada nomination.

Bush picks up votes in my opinion.

dig420

04-28-2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 28 2003, 04:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 28 2003, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--dig420@Apr 28 2003, 03:59 PM
if your favored party is so evil that it's got a large % of the public believing this is true, why are you still voting for them? Why do you still defend them? Are you just committed to them no matter how evil they get, no matter what they do? At what point do you say to yourself 'I was wrong, these fuckers are just no good'? Does that point even exist with you?
Dig,

I'm sorry I don't share your view that I have to belong to a party and cheer it on like it's a football game. I don't hold a chosen party platform point close to heart that I refuse to see there is any point but the Politburo one. At election time I don't sit in front of the tv with a beer cheering each Democratic Party win and Republican loss. You don't get it. I just don't view the world that way.

I don't have a favored party. I have no party to defend. I am committed to no party.

That's you, brother. Not me. Don't confuse.[/b][/quote]
it's not a football game, bro, it's your life and your country and the laws under which you will be governed. Choose wisely.

Almighty Colin

04-28-2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 05:24 PM
it's not a football game, bro, it's your life and your country and the laws under which you will be governed. Choose wisely.

Hey Dig,

For 225 years people have been predicting the end of the American way of life and no one has been right yet. We're only getting better.

I am not interested so much in chosing as much as I am in observing. From where I stand, each party has the same number of idiots and savants. For me, there are issues, there are politicians, and there are parties; the last of which is the least important. Parties change. Platforms are amorphous. Today's Republican Party is not the party of Lincoln. Today's Democratic Party is not even the party of LBJ or Kennedy. Times change and they change fast.

Gephard is not Lieberman and just because they are in the same party doesn't mean I would necessarily lump them together. If they had the same views, they wouldn't need to run against each other. The simple fact that they are different is proof that neither party has a monopoly on truth. A party may have some broad outlines which are applicable on average but even the platforms themselves are influenced by the candidates themselves. There are pro-life Republicans and Democrats that will sign CDA-like documents into law.

I find both Bush or Lieberman very much preferable to Sharpton or Falwell.

My idea of bliss is a Republican President and a Democratic House or vice versa.

The political system as outlined in the US Constitution is designed to remove extremism. It's a self-correcting system as much as a governmental process can be anyway. I believe the American system of government is an excellent system of government. I am amazed at the forethought and political insights that the founders of the US had. The early post-Revolutionary period writings of Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Hamilton, and others are very powerful. The principles they wished to uphold and the system of checks and balances they designed to prevent the problems they had observed in other governments were quite extraordinary.

:salute:

Last edited by Colin at Apr 28 2003, 06:30 PM

PornoDoggy

04-28-2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 28 2003, 04:14 PM
As far as Estrada, I think there are people that view such an event through many lenses. As far as Latinos, some will hold their political party status as an important self-image. To others, their self-image will be dominated by the concept of "Latino". Some will be mixed.

I think if you work out the possibilities, it is more likely that neutral Latinos will vote Republican than any other change as a result of the Estrada nomination.

Bush picks up votes in my opinion.
I don't doubt that it will be effective for some people; I think the gain may be neglible, and still think the backlash against it (which will be a lot harder to measure) may more than counteract it. I really wonder how many people are actually gullible enough to fall for it; the folks that are actually saying it as if they believe it don't have a lot of credibility. You call it a gain for the Republicans; I call it a wash at best, and a pretty crude, dispicable play of race politics REGARDLESS of the results.

Still, playing the race card is a time honored tradition in American politcs. Until about 30 years ago it was mostly a Democratic technique; that baton was passed (thank you Massa Mitchell!) during the Nixon Administration.

It will be interesting to see if they can continue to play the race card both ways - attempting to paint the Democrats as anti-Hispanic because they oppose one specific conservative judicial nominee, yet continuing to chip away at things like Affirmative Action and other attempts to level the playing field while professing their desire to be more inclusive.

[QUOTE]Why? Sharpton is every bit the lunatic fringe racist that Pat Robertson is. [QUOTE]

I don't know that I've ever characterized either person as racist. I know that some of Robertson's contemporaries have some peculiar ideas of race (i.e., Bob Jones); and I think that characterizing Sharpton's advocacy for African Americans as "racist" is false, misleading, and downright incorrect (since wrong is a loaded word in this thread).

I don't know how I'd feel about Sharpton if I thought he was a serious political force. I find him contemptable, personally. Frankly, if he motivates a segment of the African American community to work harder against Bush and gracefully bows out at a later date in favor of another politician, he will be acting as nothing more than a somewhat non-traditional "favorite son." The paranoid side of me wonders where he's getting his money - Buchannan once suggested that Nixon fund Dick Gregory's third party campaign to deprive the Democrats of some black votes, so who knows?

But comparing the power and influence of Sharpton to Robertson takes some damn fucking good drugs.

dig420

04-28-2003, 08:43 PM

It will be interesting to see if they can continue to play the race card both ways - attempting to paint the Democrats as anti-Hispanic because they oppose one specific conservative judicial nominee, yet continuing to chip away at things like Affirmative Action and other attempts to level the playing field while professing their desire to be more inclusive.
-----------

This is why the Repubs play so hard to the Bubba demographic. The subterfuge isn't complex, but for the flag waving crowd the idea that Repubs could nominate a minority for a certain position and still be working against minority interests is a labyrinthine concept of Machiavellian subtlety. Educated people are supposed to know better.

What exactly does the Republican party stand for anyway? Rugged individualism? How do you reconcile that with the Patriot Act? How can you have supposed 'libertarians' and the Religious Right in the same party and have the party aimed at some specific ethical goal? I don't think you can. States rights? How can you reconcile that with the War On Drugs?

I just want to know, from those who identify themselves as conservative, what exactly does that word mean to you? What is the concept behind it that you're defending and how do the Republicans defend that concept?

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 28 2003, 07:06 PM
I don't doubt that it will be effective for some people; I think the gain may be neglible, and still think the backlash against it (which will be a lot harder to measure) may more than counteract it. I really wonder how many people are actually gullible enough to fall for it; the folks that are actually saying it as if they believe it don't have a lot of credibility. You call it a gain for the Republicans; I call it a wash at best, and a pretty crude, dispicable play of race politics REGARDLESS of the results.

Sure, yeah. Maybe, but I'll take a bet the GOP is running commercials highlighting the Estrada nomination under the auspices of "Citizens for an Elephantine World" in South Florida come election time.

Dirty? Of course!

James Carville, Karl Rove. These guys are ruthless killers. Southern no fly zone. No comfort. There are no rules.

How many people are that gullilble? That's a good question. I don't know how to answer that question in terms of gullibleness.How many people think OJ was guilty? Would the poll results for blacks and whites differ? Why?

Last edited by Colin at Apr 29 2003, 05:15 AM

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 28 2003, 07:51 PM
How can you have supposed 'libertarians' and the Religious Right in the same party and have the party aimed at some specific ethical goal?
Is that a new party? I've never in my life heard a Libertarian describe themselves as a member of the Religious Right. California must be a weird place, man. Strange goings on over there. Please explain. What party is THAT?

dig420

04-29-2003, 04:20 AM

no but you hear plenty of people who talk conservative and vote republican describe themselves as libertarian. Re-read the post, there's a question in it I would genuinely like to see answered.

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 03:28 AM
no but you hear plenty of people who talk conservative and vote republican describe themselves as libertarian. Re-read the post, there's a question in it I would genuinely like to see answered.
Is this coming from this thread? Wig or Me? I think we're the only ones that called ourselves Libertarians. I think JR would probably define himself as independent but I'm not sure really. We'll have to ask him.

I describe myself as a libertarian because my philosophical views of what the world should be are best represented by the libertarian viewpoint. Now, this philosophical viewpoint assumes everyone else will cooperate. If they don't, it doesn't function properly. For example, from my reading of the libertarian platform, military spending would end up greatly reduced. However, I believe it is important to have a very powerful military and I think it should be used for political means on occasion. Now, that is NOT a libertarian view. Nor is it only a Republican view or a Democratic one. The truth is that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush used the military for political means and I mean in the Clausewitzian sense. Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon did too. "Containment" is a political doctrine that required force.

The more I look at the realities of the world the less I can live in my libertarian fantasy-world. Life is a dangerous business and part of the function of government is to serve and protect. It aims to preserve the people and itself. So this starts to break down for me. I can only half-heartedly call myself a libertarian today.

If I turned next to the Democratic Party and then the Republican Party the same sort of absurdities arise. There are a lot of things I don't like about either party. However, I don't really view it that way. I tend to think of the the system as a whole and that the worst of each party is smoothed over in-effect by a system of checks and balances designed to do just that. I think the Republican or Democratic Party left to their own would not be a good thing.

Know what, Dig? I think George Bush is doing a great job as president. I think the world is a better place. It has nothing to do with a party position.

I'm not sure if you are insinuating that Wig or I is a "Conservative that votes Republican that describes themselves as Libertarian". I really don't care. I've seen no difference between Republicans or Democrats as far as intellect, wisdom, kindness or any other positive human quality. Call me a Republican and I'll just say "You're not paying attention but thank you". I would say you missed last week where I was defending Bill Clinton's presidency. I'd say you missed Sword thinking the opposite; that I was part of the "Blame America First crowd". [He's since realized differently]. There are plenty of people I respect that are Republicans. There are plenty of people I respect that are Democrats.

I'm not sure which of your questions you want answered. If you want to ask a Republican questions about the Republican party, there are plenty here to answer for you. If you want my views of the Republican Party you're going to hear that I agree with them in some places and disagree with others. Where I agree with them, you'll disagree. You'll say "how can you be such a moron to agree with anything that comes from that party? They are stupid, dirty, cheating, racist, and evil. You should be smarter than that. Educated people should know better than that." I don't know how to address that, Dig. The school of thought that one party is always right and the other is always wrong is kinda crazy to me and claiming that one party has a monopoly on education or intelligence is absurd in the face of the evidence.

You're right about one thing. I do wave a flag. When did that become a bad thing?

Last edited by Colin at Apr 29 2003, 05:06 AM

dig420

04-29-2003, 06:33 AM

I've seen no difference between Republicans or Democrats as far as intellect, wisdom, kindness or any other positive human quality.
--------------

You see no difference between Pat Robertson, David Duke, your average book-burning, nigger-hating, church-going, flag-waving republican and a typical democrat? I see a BIG difference. I don't know how you're missing it.

Flag waving became wrong when it was co-opted by Republicans who think they're part of a new species called homo superiorus because they had the dumb luck to be born in this country, and if we don't share (or pretend to share) in their simple minded fascistic ethnocentrism we're traitors who can get the fuck out of THEIR country.

The reason I'm entirely against the Republican Party is because I think that, at this time, we're in the 'good little German' phase. 50 years from now we're going to be looking back on Shrub the way we look back on Joe McCarthy, and I want to be on record saying I hated the bastard when he was in his height of power.

Last edited by dig420 at Apr 29 2003, 05:44 AM

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 05:41 AM
You see no difference between Pat Robertson, David Duke, your average book-burning, nigger-hating, church-going, flag-waving republican and a typical democrat? I see a BIG difference. I don't know how you're missing it.

Yes, I see a big difference between Pat Robertson and the typical Democrat. I also see a big difference between Senator Byrd and the typical Republican. Like you, when I compare the extremes to the typical I see differences.

What kind of bizarre comparison shell game are you trying to play?

Do you ignore mirrors? What are you afraid of?

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 05:41 AM
Flag waving became wrong when it was co-opted by Republicans who think they're part of a new species called homo superiorus because they had the dumb luck to be born in this country, and if we don't share (or pretend to share) in their simple minded fascistic ethnocentrism we're traitors who can get the fuck out of THEIR country.

What else would you be willing to surrender just because you'd be afraid of being caught agreeing with the "Evil Republicans". Is the Politburo cracking down?

The "German phase". Right. Kaiser Clinton then Kaiser Bush. The Senatestag. Too funny. What next? The Afrikan Corps? The Weimar Constitution didn't even last two decades. The American Constitution is going strong after more than 200 years. What's the difference?

History is tricky.

dig420

04-29-2003, 07:53 AM

why do you insist on ignoring the fact that the type of Republican I'm talking about is completely in control of their party?

and exactly what do you mean by Senator Byrd being different than the average Republican? Of course he is, he hasn't proposed any police state legislation or compared getting a blowjob to having man on dog sex. You're not going to get much mileage out of trying to use Byrd as a straw man, bro, his record has been pretty good the last 40 years or so and he's no extremist of any stripe, but the fact that you're reaching out so desperately is indicitave of how badly you're trying to win an argument.

I'm not trying to argue. I'm saying that the Republican Party is a great danger to our civil liberties internally and our international status externally. I'm not trying to score points. How do you argue against the fact that Republicans want to teach creationism in schools? How do you defend that? Why would you even want to? How can you not see deadly evil when they parade it in front of your face every chance they get?

I'm not making this shit up. The extremists in the Republican Party OWN the party, therefore they are no longer extremists, they are mainstream Republicans. A Republican vote is a vote for them. This is no shell game, these are dangerous people.

I have no love for Democrats just because they're democrats. I HATE Joe Leibermann and Tipper Gore, but it's not the Democrats who are making a comfortable home for Santorum, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Robertson and every other slimeball who ducked out of Vietnam but wants to send the children of poor people off to a pointless war or who rails about family values and wholesome morality when they're on their third divorce. Hypocrites and chicken hawks. Why would you, a self-professed narcotic using, open minded, non-religious pornographer, want to fight so fiercely for people who would happily see you lined up against a wall and shot like a dog? They HATE you man, just as bad as they hate me. The Republican Party thinks you're filth and they're not afraid to say it publically.

There is a slice off the top of the Republican Party who believes that Repubs will lower their taxes and that's all they allow themselves to think about. They think the Gary Bauers and Pat Robertsons will just go away or the democrats will take care of them or they couldn't possibly mean what they say anyway, but they do bro, they mean every word of it. It's because of the votes of the economic Republicans that the Morality Republicans are so powerful, and they're just about too powerful to get rid of now. What's it going to take to convince you? Kristalnacht in Los Angeles? A Chinese nuke in NY? A nationwide ban on Un-American art and literature? It's going to be too late by then...

This thread has gone on too long for me and if nothing I say has made an impression on you yet it's not going to, so I'm going to give it up. I don't think you're a bad person, I just think you're allowing yourself to be misled when I know that you're intelligent enough to see thru it if you cared to, but I can't penetrate that shell.

dig420

04-29-2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 29 2003, 06:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 29 2003, 06:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--dig420@Apr 29 2003, 05:41 AM
Flag waving became wrong when it was co-opted by Republicans who think they're part of a new species called homo superiorus because they had the dumb luck to be born in this country, and if we don't share (or pretend to share) in their simple minded fascistic ethnocentrism we're traitors who can get the fuck out of THEIR country.

What else would you be willing to surrender just because you'd be afraid of being caught agreeing with the "Evil Republicans". Is the Politburo cracking down?

The "German phase". Right. Kaiser Clinton then Kaiser Bush. The Senatestag. Too funny. What next? The Afrikan Corps? The Weimar Constitution didn't even last two decades. The American Constitution is going strong after more than 200 years. What's the difference?

History is tricky.[/b][/quote]
two words - Patriot Act.

now I'm really done.

wig

04-29-2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 07:01 AM
I'm not trying to argue.
Morning, Dig. This line is too funny! :groucho:

wig

04-29-2003, 08:14 AM

I don't think Colin is trying to defend Republicans the way you describe Dig. Clearly, your belief that he is has your G-string well up your crack and you just ignore the point he is maing and go right back into your tirade.

You wear your heart on your sleeve and instead of having a debate or exchange of opinion, you take everything TOO serious and are hell bent on trying to "enlighten" everyone else to your line of thinking -- clearly with the attitude that your ideas are the only valid ones.

What exactly are you doing in life with all this "understanding" to better position yourself? To make your area a better place. To help?

How exactly are you taking advantage of your infinite wisdom besides passionately bashing conservatives and supporting liberals??

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 07:01 AM
How do you argue against the fact that Republicans want to teach creationism in schools? How do you defend that? Why would you even want to?
I don't, Dig. I don't think we should teach Creationism in our schools. Where do you get this from? I have absolutely no interest at all in Creationism ending up anywhere but the "ash heap of history".

You ARE trying to win a debate. You want to point out the good of the Democratic party and ignore anything bad about it. You want to point out the bad of the Republican party and ignore the good. You search not for knowledge but for points. Go ahead. I don't care. I understand where you are coming from. You've replaced on flag with another. Saluting that Democratic Party flag is different that saluting the American one, right?

Not only are there Democrats and Republicans, there is a Libertarian Party, a Constitution Party, The Green Party, The Natural Law Party, A Reform Party, and many others. There's even a Socialist Party in the good old US of A. Not everyone can fit neatly into two simple categories. You can't fit a square peg into a round hole without really mashing it, ya know?

Last edited by Colin at Apr 29 2003, 07:34 AM

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 07:01 AM
I HATE Joe Leibermann and Tipper Gore
Hey, good for you. Is this the Democratic Party tolerance I've heard so much about?

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 07:01 AM
Why would you, a self-professed narcotic using, open minded, non-religious pornographer, want to fight so fiercely for people who would happily see you lined up against a wall and shot like a dog? T
I believe in ideas and policies which coincidentally may be believed by Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists [they are in favor of cat-spaying. Me too.], Constitutionalists, Reformists, and any other groups of "isms", "ists", and "ats". Doesn't matter at all to me who believes them and who doesn't, Dig. I don't expect that it is likely that a large group of people can form a platform with principles that I completely believe in.

Drug-free now BTW. Just for the record.

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 07:01 AM
I don't think you're a bad person, I just think you're allowing yourself to be misled when I know that you're intelligent enough to see thru it if you cared to, but I can't penetrate that shell.
Yeah, I know. Your beliefs are right. Mine are wrong. You're intelligent. I'm misled. You're independent. I'm a sheep. You can predict the future. I can't. You draw the correct lessons from history. I draw the incorrect ones. Your eyes are wide-open. Mine are closed. You learn. I'm propagandized. You defend the truth. I defend the indefensible. You report. They distort.

Fun game. What's it called?

wig

04-29-2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 29 2003, 07:56 AM
Fun game. What's it called?
Futility?

Rox

04-29-2003, 11:07 AM

http://www.crankyandbored.com

"Man, most political debates are just sad to see anymore. Most everyone seems to draw up lines in the sand siding up with either Liberals ™ or Conservatives ® rather than simply formulating their own opinions on different issues. Any opinions given are degraded for the mere fact of either being in agreement with government policy or critical of government policy, despite the fact that both play an important role in continuously striving for a better government. Any disagreement with one's own opinion is immediately considered to be wrong, rather than just being a differing opinion. Its like watching a retarded vegetarian argue with a retarded carnivore about what kind of pizza to order."

:biglaugh:

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Rox@Apr 29 2003, 10:15 AM
http://www.crankyandbored.com

:okthumb:

04-29-2003, 11:20 AM

Its like watching a retarded vegetarian argue with a retarded carnivore about what kind of pizza to order."

hahaha.. thats classic.

:okthumb:

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 11:51 AM

This is what I really want.

A. I want to be able to say anything I want but I'd like to be able to say "shut up" to people every once in a while and them have to honor my request.

B. I want to own a gun but I don't want you to be able to own one.

C. I want to be free from search and seizure but I'd like to be able to enter your house whenever I wish and take whatever I want.

D. I think slavery is wrong but I have no problem if anyone wants to follow me around and do shit for free. Actually, I wouldn't mind if everyone in the world had to do exactly as I said. Sounds like it would kind of fun for a while.

E. I think the seatbelt laws are an affront to human dignity. If one doesn't have the freedom to not wear a seatbelt, what freedom does one really have?

Now, since I can't have those things I guess I'll have to compromise.

Diamond Jim

04-29-2003, 01:45 PM

I gave up arguing politics with Dig many moons ago, as he has demonstrated an amazing incapacity to understand what his opponent is saying.

Vick

04-29-2003, 02:32 PM

When is the Reader's Digest Condensed Version or the Cliff notes version of this thread due out?

:headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :stout:

Last edited by Vick at Apr 29 2003, 01:41 PM

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Vick@Apr 29 2003, 01:40 PM
When is the Reader's Digest Condensed Version or the Cliff notes version of this thread due out?

Slacker.

Mike AI

04-29-2003, 02:48 PM

This is funny stuff, dig is consumed by hatred.... I think he is brainwashed...

No use in debating him on these issues, he is one of those people who Serge says are POSTERS, NOT READERS.

Almighty Colin

04-29-2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Diamond Jim@Apr 29 2003, 12:53 PM
I gave up arguing politics with Dig many moons ago, as he has demonstrated an amazing incapacity to understand what his opponent is saying.
Jim,

How do you always show up when these conversations appear? <_<

PornoDoggy

04-29-2003, 08:36 PM

Mike, on what do you base your comment that Dig is consumed by hatred? It sounds very much like a canned line you borrowed from somebody. It's a pretty lame-assed assertion - it would be very easy to build a credible arguement about any side of the political spectrum being haters. To listen to American conservatives wail about the discrimination of affirmative action, the oppression of income taxes and restrictive environmental laws, criticism of welfare programs, yada yada yada, you would think they hate America too.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know who started using that tactic - describing people who don't fart in tune with the RNC and the Bush Administration as haters? Was it one of the speechwriters who pull the strings and make Bush and Cheney talk, or some obnoxious moron like Ann Coulter? It has to have been by somebody promininent on the right. You are about the third or fourth bobble-head for Bush I've seen use that line, on me or on someone else - so I'm assuming it's right out of a playbook someplace.

04-30-2003, 03:58 AM

i dont think its a stretch to say that dig is a little bitter and angry considering that he himself said more than once in this thread alone "i hate....." in addition to what seem to be some pretty consistent, bitter remarks combined with a flat out refusal to accept or consider opposing viewpoints. the tone when he talks about anything political is usually pretty consistent.

i personally dont have a problem with it. i dont think its a healthy behavior for an individual, but i think its healthy and necessary to the political system as a whole.

you are starting to do the same thing by abandoning discussion and retreating behind your comfortable party line where you know you can always fire back. who is "describing people who don't fart in tune with the RNC and the Bush Administration as haters" as you put it? Was Mike commenting on Dig's party affiliation? or his remarks about other peoples views?

Last edited by JR at Apr 30 2003, 12:18 AM

PornoDoggy

04-30-2003, 11:42 AM

I don't find dig's tone or attitude substantially different from others who participate in political discussions on Oprano, except of course he's coming from the left. His "flat out refusal to accept or consider opposing viewpoints" does not make him unique either.

I think dig's description of the good democrats/bad republicans is sophmoroic and simplistic in the extreme. I don't find dig's arguements that one party is right and another wrong, evil, or immoral any more or less fundamentally flawed than the idea that liberals believe in a foreign ideaology, for example.

When a person makes the statement that there is no point in debating someone because "he is brainwashed", it is obvious that "abandoning discussion and retreating behind [a] comfortable party line" started before I jumped in.

The question about who first started using the hater line was sincere, BTW.

dantheman

04-30-2003, 11:55 AM

man I tried to read this whole thread, but I kept dozing off :nyanya:

Vick

04-30-2003, 11:58 AM

and Colin called me a slacker for asking when the cliff notes version would be available :P

Wake me when it's over and it's done
To read all of this makes my brain numb

It's been said many times, many ways
You'll never change someone's dead set opinion (or if you prefer ideologies)

So :headwall:

Mental Health will drive 'ya mad

dig420

05-01-2003, 04:54 AM

Race baiting is evil.

The Religious Right is evil.

Race baiters and the Religious Right control the Republican Party, therefore;

The Republican Party is evil.

Simple, sophomoric and true.

Almighty Colin

05-01-2003, 05:40 AM

Dig,

I don't believe in evil. Maybe you can explain it to me (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=3373)

05-01-2003, 05:46 AM

Race baiting is evil.

The Religious Right is evil.

Race baiters and the Religious Right control the Republican Party, therefore;

The Republican Party is evil.

Simple, sophomoric and true.

lets assume this is "true"

can you list things about the Democratic Party that are "evil"?

Almighty Colin

05-01-2003, 08:08 AM

Dig, it's all about marketing and positioning and you know it.

A Democrat will point to McCarthyism but ignore Senator McCarran's Act of the same era.

A Democrat will point to a few examples of racism against African-Americans and turn that into
"The Republican Party is racist"

A Republican will point to a few examples of anti-semitism in the Democratic party and turn it into "The Democratic Part is anti-jewish"

A Republican will point to a white lie told by a Democratic president and turn it into "Bill Clinton is an untrustworthy devil".

Coca Cola, Gillette, and McDonald's tell you their good qualities but not their bad. They don't run any ads telling you about cutting yourself or cholesterol and fat.

It's marketing and everyone is doing it and the political parties are certainly no exception. The Republican Party is not an exception. The Democratic Party is not an exception.

It's all about story-telling. You can tell the story anyway you wish. You can say "Bill Clinton balanced the budget" or you can say "The budget was a comprise. The Republicans actually wanted to cut spending more but had to make a deal to get it passed".

You can say "Clinton balanced the budget" or you can say "the US debt increased nearly 2 trillion dollars under Clinton".

You can say "Reagan and Bush ended the Cold War" or you can say "The USSR would have collapsed anyway".

You can say "We won the war in Afghanistan" or you can say "We didn't win. Osama Bin Laden is still out there" or you can say "Thre are still Taliban out there and we'll never if they won't retake control".

Marketing a political party is very easy to do. Since there are three branches of government, one can blame or credit one of them in the story-telling and not the other. If there is a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, the president can be blamed for legislation gone awry as can the congress. Do we blame the GOP for the Patriot Act and ignore the 70% of the Democrats that voted for it too? Do we blame or credit the originator of a bill, the people that voted of it, or the president that signed it? Should we use the same criteria in all evaluations? It seems to me that in political debates the criteria is always changed to fit the circumstance and there is no neutral mark that is ever used. Hell, seems to me that the criteria is usually manufactured on the spot.

Are we interested in truth or are we interested in telling stories?

Torone

05-01-2003, 08:26 AM

"I don't find dig's tone or attitude substantially different from others who participate in political discussions on Oprano, except of course he's coming from the left."

And, of course, that is exactly why you would defend him by totally ignoring his own statements...

It IS the current nature of the Left to not only hate; but to foment hate by any means that works, including outright lies. Dig is an America-hater. He can't change that because he cannot see it. He is a consummate kool-ade drinker.

Last edited by Torone at May 1 2003, 07:35 AM

05-01-2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Torone@May 1 2003, 04:34 AM
Dig is an America-hater.
why would you say something like that?

my impression is exactly the opposite, i think he is very patriotic.

Torone

05-01-2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by JR+May 1 2003, 07:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ May 1 2003, 07:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@May 1 2003, 04:34 AM
Dig is an America-hater.
why would you say something like that?

my impression is exactly the opposite, i think he is very patriotic.[/b][/quote]
You would...(where's that damned 'finger' smiley?)

Almighty Colin

05-01-2003, 08:45 AM

There's a fundamental problem to begin with. Any situation is too complex to describe it completely. Any event that hits our radar screens as a 'political event' has a long chain of preceding causes and other related events that would take longer to describe than the actual event itself. So we abridge the story. We summarize. How we choose to summarize both in the discussions we have and in our own internal thought scheme is quite interesting. We all come from different places, have different interests, and have different goals. A huge influence on our story-telling.

I just want to know what happened. I try and discover what the chains of cause and effect are with as little bias as possible - as doomed to failure as that inevitably is. What are the sources of bias? How can we filter them out? This is why I've tried to get outside and abandon political parties. Of course, it's silly. One just ends up with new biases to contend with.

I think one's world-view is testable to an extent by the ability to make predictions about the world. Failed predictions should cause one to question either the original assumptions or the logic of what caused it. The philosophy of modern science [Karl Popper is good for anyone not familiar with him] is that one should make testable predictions from one's hypotheses. We are all often doing this. Each of these political discussions seem to have a lot of predictions. Why? I suppose everyone has their own reasons. Being right is fun, of course. For me, it's a science-thing. A test of one's world view. Am I right? Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, what didn't and I know and what can I learn from it?

Almighty Colin

05-01-2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by JR@May 1 2003, 07:46 AM
my impression is exactly the opposite, i think he is very patriotic.
Yeah, I think so too.

05-01-2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Torone+May 1 2003, 04:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Torone @ May 1 2003, 04:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -JR@May 1 2003, 07:46 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Torone@May 1 2003, 04:34 AM
Dig is an America-hater.
why would you say something like that?

my impression is exactly the opposite, i think he is very patriotic.
You would...(where's that damned 'finger' smiley?)[/b][/quote]
why would you say that?

how American is it to accuse everyone that does not agree with you of being an "american hater" or "communist" or "a traitor"

there is more to people, belief systems and political beliefs than "those who agree with Torone" and "Goddam Communists". when you start down that path... what makes you any different in your beliefs than Lenin?

Almighty Colin

05-01-2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by JR@May 1 2003, 08:04 AM
how American is it to accuse everyone that does not agree with you of being an "american hater" or "communist" or "a traitor"

Yeah, you gotta bring the witch-hunt to a non-American.

This is how you
get mileage (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=2217) out of it ,

:ph34r:

Almighty Colin

05-01-2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by JR@May 1 2003, 08:04 AM
what makes you any different in your beliefs than Lenin?
JR, you promised not to let my secret out.

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/colin.jpghttp://www.buildinganempire.com/images/lenin2.jpg

Torone

05-01-2003, 09:15 AM

I know that you do not believe this because you are either Leftist or over-tolerant because of some deep-seated guilt; but when someone makes the sort of statements Dig does as a matter of routine, they sure as hell can't be called patriotic; and in my personal opinion, those statements denote a hatred of the very roots (capitalism) that this country runs on. Therefore, IN MY OPINION, he hates this country. Logically, that makes him an Anti-American and an America-hater.

Are Conservatives allowed to have an opinion and freedom of expression; or are those things reserved for the Leftist 'intellectual elite'?

Almighty Colin

05-01-2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Torone@May 1 2003, 08:23 AM
when someone makes the sort of statements Dig does as a matter of routine, they sure as hell can't be called patriotic; and in my personal opinion, those statements denote a hatred of the very roots (capitalism) that this country runs on. Therefore, IN MY OPINION, he hates this country. Logically, that makes him an Anti-American and an America-hater.

Where has Dig said anything against capitalism though? He owns a business. He employs people. He works hard. Pretty capitalistic if you ask me.

I agree with JR and I see Dig as Patriotic because he acts it. He talks about Republicans "messing up the country" and he doesn't want to see that. Now, he overreacts for my personal tastes and I disagree with his assessment that the end is coming anytime soon but in the end, to each their own.

05-01-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Torone@May 1 2003, 05:23 AM
I know that you do not believe this because you are either Leftist or over-tolerant because of some deep-seated guilt; but when someone makes the sort of statements Dig does as a matter of routine, they sure as hell can't be called patriotic; and in my personal opinion, those statements denote a hatred of the very roots (capitalism) that this country runs on. Therefore, IN MY OPINION, he hates this country. Logically, that makes him an Anti-American and an America-hater.

torone... lets start again.
i am on your side.

i made you a webpage.
please let me know what you think

my new webpage... the new me. (http://www.pleasurelabs.com/rush.html)

05-01-2003, 09:55 AM

and Torone, if you want to put a banner there or trade traffic from that page, please let me know.

New partner site with Torone. (http://www.pleasurelabs.com/rush.html)

Rox

05-01-2003, 11:04 AM

Airing our grievances and engaging in political debate are the very spirit of patriotism and the foundation of American life. Of course there will always be people who take things to the extreme, or stick to the party line of their choice; and then there are a whole bunch of people who fall somewhere in the middle. Since it's generally the extremists who are most vocal (and usually make statements and points worthy of argument), it seems like there are only two choices -- but that's not really the way things are. There are shades of gray and the result of debate is that we hopefully end up with some sort of compromise that puts us in that gray area. The people on either end of the spectrum probably end up unhappy with the result, but that end is likely to satisfy the most people (who're more middle of the road).

I disagree with, and even despise, much of the ideology ascribed to the Right; but I can't imagine calling anyone who DOES subscribe to that ideology "unpatriotic" or an "America-hater." I cannot fathom how those people who want to see America declared officially a Christian nation, or would squelch the right of free speech of those whose ideas are contrary to their own can possibly maintain that they're upholding the American way, but I'd never call them unpatriotic. Deluded, perhaps, but not unpatriotic.

US history holds many stories of people who have been imprisoned and even died for exercising their right to disagree with public policy, and I personally feel it is a denigration to their memories to move toward an America where a person has to feel threatened for daring to voice their opposition to the way things are, or they way they feel things are going.

Our country and our system aren't perfect, that's for sure. But I certainly wouldn't want to live anywhere else. We have the right, and I'd go so far as to say even the duty, to argue against those things we don't like and have them changed.

Torone

05-01-2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by JR@May 1 2003, 09:03 AM
and Torone, if you want to put a banner there or trade traffic from that page, please let me know.

Very funny; but Hitler was YOUR guy. He believed in a totalitarian gov't where the state owned and controlled everything.

05-01-2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Torone+May 1 2003, 07:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Torone @ May 1 2003, 07:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JR@May 1 2003, 09:03 AM
and Torone, if you want to put a banner there or trade traffic from that page, please let me know.

Very funny; but Hitler was YOUR guy. He believed in a totalitarian gov't where the state owned and controlled everything.[/b][/quote]
i did not know Hitler was "my guy". thanks for the history lesson on Nazi ideaology... and i was not aware that i was in favor of a totalitarian government where the state owned everything. that sucks.

now i dislike myself even more.

Torone, would you recommend this book?

http://64.95.118.51/images/opti/19/17/0440508649-resized200.jpg

Vick

05-01-2003, 06:55 PM

Dig - I think your logic is flawed

Race baiting is evil.

The Religious Right is evil.

Race baiters and the Religious Right control the Republican Party, therefore;

The Republican Party is evil.

Simple, sophomoric and true.

If we take that to be true .....

Whoremongering could be evil

Leaving a women to drown is evil

Protecting rapist is evil

Bootlegging was illegal and therefore could be evil

Having various affairs under your wife's nose is evil

Your son's doing the same is evil

Being involved with organized crime is evil

ALL THE ABOVE POINTS I JUST MADE AND MORE......
Are true of the Kennedy family ...
the American DEMOCRAT Royal family

Furthermore
Is Jessie Jackson a republican, he's a race baiter, what about Al Sharpton?

Taking into consideration my input
In the above case the logic you tried doesn't work

Last edited by Vick at May 1 2003, 06:33 PM

Winetalk.com

05-03-2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Colin+May 1 2003, 08:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ May 1 2003, 08:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JR@May 1 2003, 08:04 AM
what makes you any different in your beliefs than Lenin?
JR, you promised not to let my secret out.

http://www.buildinganempire.com/images/colin.jpghttp://www.buildinganempire.com/images/lenin2.jpg[/b][/quote]
oh my!!!!
;-)))

Almighty Colin

05-03-2003, 12:15 PM

Serge,

Could I pass for Russian?

Vick

05-03-2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Colin@May 3 2003, 11:23 AM
Serge,

Could I pass for Russian?
Hey can you complete passes for the Ravens???

Almighty Colin

05-03-2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Vick+May 3 2003, 11:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ May 3 2003, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@May 3 2003, 11:23 AM
Serge,

Could I pass for Russian?
Hey can you complete passes for the Ravens???[/b][/quote]
Nevermore

Vick

05-03-2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Colin+May 3 2003, 11:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ May 3 2003, 11:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Vick@May 3 2003, 11:34 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@May 3 2003, 11:23 AM
Serge,

Could I pass for Russian?
Hey can you complete passes for the Ravens???
Nevermore[/b][/quote]
in the bleak December ......

Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels name Lenore?

Almighty Colin

05-03-2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Vick+May 3 2003, 12:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ May 3 2003, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@May 3 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by -Vick@May 3 2003, 11:34 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@May 3 2003, 11:23 AM
Serge,

Could I pass for Russian?
Hey can you complete passes for the Ravens???
Nevermore
in the bleak December ......

Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels name Lenore?[/b][/quote]
And the music plays on, as the bride passes by
Caught by his spell and the mariner tells his tale.

PornoDoggy

05-03-2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Torone@May 1 2003, 07:34 AM
"I don't find dig's tone or attitude substantially different from others who participate in political discussions on Oprano, except of course he's coming from the left."

And, of course, that is exactly why you would defend him by totally ignoring his own statements...

It IS the current nature of the Left to not only hate; but to foment hate by any means that works, including outright lies. Dig is an America-hater. He can't change that because he cannot see it. He is a consummate kool-ade drinker.
The point I was trying to make is simply that most of the ideas Dig was presenting is no more radical than much of what Mike AI says - it just happens to come from the left instead of the right. No matter how much people want to deny it, it's every bit as mainstream as the latest pronouncements from the RNC.

Torone, please reassure me that you consider me an America-hater too. If I'm not coming across as an "America-hater" to the likes of you, I'm really not doing very well in expressing my opinions.

If you scrape the very thin coating of patriotism and love of country from the lunatic fringe of the right you will find more hate than you know what to do with. The America you and yours profess to love does not exist, and never existed. You can call anyone you want a communist, a socialist, a "kool-aid drinker", or fucking late for dinner, but it does very little to obscure the fact that what you sound like are "patriots" like Tim McVeigh

BTW - you are very proud of that "kool-aid drinker" line. Did you steal that from a right-wing radio preacher, make it up on your own, or did it come to you by secret microwave transmission?

dig420

05-03-2003, 07:54 PM

The point I was trying to make is simply that most of the ideas Dig was presenting is no more radical than much of what Mike AI says
-------------

if you actually read my posts you'd see that I don't claim anything to be true that you can't verify on drudgereport.com, salon.com or by watching CNN. You attack me because you think it pleases the board regulars - you want to be seen as the 'oh he's not so bad' liberal.

In Revelation 3:15-16 it says "I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

nobody likes a fence-sitter. Not even God. :rokk:

Last edited by dig420 at May 3 2003, 07:03 PM

Almighty Colin

05-03-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by dig420@May 3 2003, 07:02 PM
You attack me because you think it pleases the board regulars - you want to be seen as the 'oh he's not so bad' liberal.

PD has been defending you, not attacking you. I don't think anyone would accuse PD of not speaking HIS mind that has read more than 2 words of his posts.

Last edited by Colin at May 3 2003, 07:35 PM

Almighty Colin

05-03-2003, 08:26 PM

Dig,

Question for you.

Strom Thurman used to be a Democrat. Jesse Helms used to be a Democrat.

So does that mean the Democrats used to be evil too?

dig420

05-03-2003, 09:28 PM

yep before the Dixie Democrats went Republican.

Simple and sophomoric.. with friends like pdoggy I don't need enemies.

Almighty Colin

05-03-2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by dig420@May 3 2003, 08:36 PM
Simple and sophomoric.. with friends like pdoggy I don't need enemies.

I have an alternative theory. You don't read everything before you post. :blink:

PornoDoggy

05-03-2003, 09:48 PM

Slow down just a bit here, Dig ... I'm not in the least campaigning to be the good liberal on Oprano - I have no interest in being a Clarence Thomas - and I certainly wasn't attacking the truth of anything you were saying. I wasn't defending it, either. That wasn't the point of my comments at all.

All I was trying to point out is that the attempts to depict you as some wild-eyed radical are pretty pathetic, even if it's a time-honored Oprano tradition. IMHO you are far less an extreme leftist than several regular posters around here are to the far, far fringes of the right.

Paranoia will destroy ya ...

And Colin re the Jesse Helms and Strom Thurman (silly) question - at one point in this country the political divides were far more regional than party. Aside from the fact that the Republican Party actively recruited them into the fold, part of the reason that Helms and Thurman picked up and left is that they found the Republican Party far more appreciative of their, um, "States Rights" idealology. :rolleyes:

Torone is quite fond of the using the fact that LBJ needed the aid of honorable men like Everet Dirksen and others from the Republican center and left as some kind of evidence that the Democrats are no better on Civil Rights than the Republicans. Unfortunately that line of reasoning requires you have absolutely no knowledge of either history or the state of the Republican Party today. A true conservative such as Dirksen would likely be considered as "soft" on too many of the buzz issues by contemporary standards, and would be pushed to the side like McCain; the likes of Charles Percy, the other Illinois Senator voting for the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights legislation wouldn't stand a chance in hell of being a contemporary Republican, and there are many others like him.

So - my answer to your question would be yes, the Southern Wing of the Democratic Party used to be evil. However, like Helms, Thurmon, and the other relics from that era, most of them haven't been Democrats since John Mictchell went all-out to steal the bubba vote from George Wallace, if not before.

Almighty Colin

05-03-2003, 09:59 PM

PD,

I know WHY.

I was just curious as to whether this means evil vacillates from party to party depending on which party the South identifies with in Dig's view. Now I know the answer and that you think the same. What about New England Republicans? Are they evil by proxy then? I'm really interested in how all this good vs. evil stuff works. Is this kinda like the "axis of evil"?

Almighty Colin

05-03-2003, 10:24 PM

As far as the Civil Rights Act, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the act in both Houses. So up until 1964 at least, I think one could conclude that Republicans were as strong and probably stronger on average on Civil Rights than Democrats. That is what Torone is saying, right? Though how would one measure that support in the houses against the signature of a president? Kennedy was instrumental in pushing for the enactment of the bill. Does that hold more weight? Was that vote representative of the public at large? I don't know how else one could fairly measure such a thing. Maybe there's an old poll someone could dig up and then what does that mean?

An interesting stat is that the majority of African-Americans in the US supported the Republican party until 1932. The New Deal. That's a landmark date.

Can we be specific? What is the "state of the republican party" today? I don't really know what anyone is trying to say. That the majority of Republicans today would vote to reverse the Civil Rights Act? That the majority of Republicans today are racist? That more Republicans are racist than Democrats? Only Southern Republicans will make inappropriate racist remarks? That Republicans don't care about civil rights? The only statements being made are pretty vague and refer to a southern axis of evil that presumably meets up with a north-to-south axis to form a cross.

PornoDoggy

05-03-2003, 11:06 PM

Colin – racists in much of the South dominated the pre-1970 Democratic Party and had as one of its fundamental purposes the suppression of the rights of one group of people based on race. While moderate and centrist Republicans supported Northern Democrats on issues of Civil Rights, several prominent Conservatives – William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater among them – admitted that they were wrong to work with the Southern Democrats in efforts to block civil rights legislation. What they stood for is, IMHO, evil, in the same way the Afrikaner party was evil, the Nazis were evil, and religious fundamentalists in the Middle East and India, for example, are evil.

I don’t think of the Republicans Party today as “evil” in the sense that I viewed the Dixiecrats/Wallace gang centered in the Democratic Party pre-1970. That being said, I view race baiting as evil. Perhaps that proves my weak mind; I just don’t know of a better way to put it, since merely labeling it "wrong" doesn’t go far enough to describe it.

There are a lot of points of valid disagreement between the left and the right, between the Democrats and the Republicans –this issue is a no-brainer. I repeat again – that is my opinion. You can agree or disagree with it; or you can indulge in some pseudophilosophical semantics game about the existence of evil in a political context. I don’t view much in the way of politics from a “morality” perspective; this is one area that I do, and I assure you I am completely unapologetic about it.

I ended up in the Navy before I could get a degree in Philosophy, so I don’t have the formal training to properly debate what is evil – but as has been said about pornography, “I know it when I see it.” I was raised in the city, so I don’t know much about horseshit, either – but as I have discovered after looking at your so-called question, I know it when I see it too.

PornoDoggy

05-03-2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Colin@May 3 2003, 09:32 PM
As far as the Civil Rights Act, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the act in both Houses. So up until 1964 at least, I think one could conclude that Republicans were as strong and probably stronger on average on Civil Rights than Democrats. That is what Torone is saying, right? Though how would one measure that support in the houses against the signature of a president? Kennedy was instrumental in pushing for the enactment of the bill. Does that hold more weight? Was that vote representative of the public at large? I don't know how else one could fairly measure such a thing. Maybe there's an old poll someone could dig up and then what does that mean?

An interesting stat is that the majority of African-Americans in the US supported the Republican party until 1932. The New Deal. That's a landmark date.

Can we be specific? What is the "state of the republican party" today? I don't really know what anyone is trying to say. That the majority of Republicans today would vote to reverse the Civil Rights Act? That the majority of Republicans today are racist? That more Republicans are racist than Democrats? Only Southern Republicans will make inappropriate racist remarks? That Republicans don't care about civil rights? The only statements being made are pretty vague and refer to a southern axis of evil that presumably meets up with a north-to-south axis to form a cross.
Yes - a higher % of Reps voted for the bills in 64 and 65 than Democrats did; but most Republicans were Eastern and Northern back then, and there was a left, center and right in both parties that simply does not exist today.

Politically, I'm not even sure how much effort the Democrats put into enforcing any kind of party discipline, because the split in the party was so profound. It's been too long since I've read anything about the maneuvering in the House, but in the Senate LBJ squeezed the balls of everybody he could get his hands on - and he knew everyone and where their skeletons where buried - and he managed to get Dirksen's support, which brought a lot of wavering Republicans over.

Kennedy's LEGACY was instrumental in pushing for the enactment of the bill; had JFK lived, there is considerable doubt whether he would have pushed for anything as daring as what LBJ did for fear of further alienating what Southern support he had.

The simple fact of the matter is that attempting to discuss the passage of the 1964/65/66 Civil Rights legislation in strictly terms of party is really an exercise in futility. Region played more of a factor than party did in most cases, and Torone's arguements fail to take that into account.

IMHO the "state of the Rep party today" is far more to the right than it was in 1964, or even in 1976. Whether there is a center in the Republican party is debatable; anyone trying to find the existance of a genuine left in the party would be better off pissing up a rope. There is certainly nothing compared to the divergence of views between the Goldwater/Reagan wing and the Lindsey/Percy/Rockefeller component; there is probably not much in the way of a viable alternative toward the center in the Republican Party, and hasn't been since the incumbent President's daddy sold out to play second fiddle in Reagan's symphony.

I don't think the majority of Republicans are racist; others may. I think that there is a convergence of racism and philosophy on some issues, namely affirmative action. I don't think most Republicans would vote to repeal the Civil Rights Act - but I don't think many would exert themselves too hard to protect many of the provisions regarding the Federal role in civil righs enforcement either - yet it's very possible that such oversite is the only thing keeping local control from doing exactly what it did before -erroding.

Probably not most, and certainly not everyone, who opposes affirmative action does so because they are racist, but a lot of folks hide behind the states rights and so-called reverse discrimination rhetoric.

Almighty Colin

05-04-2003, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@May 3 2003, 10:14 PM
You can agree or disagree with it; or you can indulge in some pseudophilosophical semantics game about the existence of evil in a political context.

You think it's a "pseudophilosophical semantics game" for someone to ask you to define and explain a word or the context in which you are using it? It makes more sense for us to carry on a conversation if we don't understand what each other are saying rather than if we do? Isn't that the whole point? You are obviously very knowledgable about this subject and it would be interesting to hear you views but if you're going to insist on me not being able to ask "my so called questions", what's the point? That wouldnt be a thread, it'd be a blog.

Maybe it's patently obvious to you but I just don't get the idea of an entire political party being labeled as evil. The entire CONCEPT of anti-discrimination is not labelling the sum by it's parts. I don't see much of a difference in labelling people by their chose political party affiliation to an appalling ideology such as racism from labelling a jewish [religion] person as subversive. What next? Catholics are evil? Baptists are evil? Hindus are evil? Jews are evil?

Yes, I did read your post and I'm not accusing you of such. You are very careful in what you said. I wouldn't have known until I asked and I still don't understand what Dig means.

Is George Bush evil because Pat Robertson believes the Bible that homosexuals should be stoned at the city gates?

dig420

05-04-2003, 06:43 AM

Is George Bush evil because Pat Robertson believes the Bible that homosexuals should be stoned at the city gates?
--------

yes. And it's more than obvious to everyone that you simply try to evade points you don't want to/can't refute on their merits by engaging in obfuscation on the level of 'what is the meaning of the word 'is'. It's also obvious that you will always respond in defense of the Repubs whenever anyone attacks them, so why not drop the impartial facade? It's pretty much in tatters anyway...

can you say that Nazi's are evil? Or would that be painting with too broad a brush for your taste?

05-04-2003, 07:24 AM

can you say that Nazi's are evil? Or would that be painting with too broad a brush for your taste?

i used to think Colin was just being a pain in the ass too. i used to suggest a great idea (what i thought to be a great idea anyway) and get bombarded with very simple questions. often questions so simple, i did not understand the usefulness of asking them. "what does "....." mean" - "what do you mean when you say "...."?" etc.

i used to get a little annoyed until i started to look at things the other way. i am asking someone with a Yale degree in physics to answer a question. in the end, i began to understand that it is in fact quite natural to define the questions, the language and to make sure that the question, termonology etc is clearly defined, understood and agreed upon from the outset... otherwise moving forward in a discussion where no one understands the other guy is often not very productive. its a normal function of debate and certainly science to establish definitions of words, define the questions etc etc first. science, mathematics and logic not about assumptions

"are Nazi's evil"?

i think too that is a generalization and a typically loaded question... the question itself implies that there can be only one black and white definition of "Nazi" and that it is (or is assumed to be) mutually understood by both parties to the discussion)... and that there cannot be any category or type of "Nazi" that may fall into a gray area.

how do you define "Nazi"? the word Nazi is symbolic of what all of us would probably agree to be very evil and unthinkable acts. The word is itself is symbolic of what we could probably all agree to be evil. But do you share the same definition of Nazi as another does? ... its impossible to know without asking.

are Nazis that refused to carry out their orders evil?
are Nazis that saved the lives of Jews and others evil?
are Nazis that defected, deserted and turned against German troops evil?
was a Nazi supply clerk in Amsterdam who managed laundry services evil?

Last edited by JR at May 4 2003, 03:36 AM

Almighty Colin

05-04-2003, 07:28 AM

"And it's more than obvious to everyone that you simply try to evade points you don't want to/can't refute on their merits by engaging in obfuscation on the level of 'what is the meaning of the word 'is'."

I don't Dig. I usually ask people what they think instead of assuming it. I don't ever know what is "obvious to everyone". It's often not the same thing I was thinking.

Last edited by Colin at May 4 2003, 06:43 AM

Almighty Colin

05-04-2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by dig420@May 4 2003, 05:51 AM
can you say that Nazi's are evil? Or would that be painting with too broad a brush for your taste?
Just a few days ago and in this thread I said "I don't believe in evil". The construct "evil" doesn't help me to understand the world any better.

An American might think Osama bin Laden is evil while a wahhabist might think he is the embodiment of good. One person may think America is good and another may think it is "The Great Satan". If evil exists only in reference to one's personal belief system, it's relative. Some people in the world think I am evil because I'm a pornographer but I'd have to disagree with them. [Sykkboy would take the opposite approach but that's him].

Other than taking a rather solipstic view of the world there doesn't seem to me to be a way for the concept of evil to add to my understanding of the world. Since it doesn't mean anything to me, that is why I was asking you what YOU meant by it. I'm interested in what you have to say but I don't know what you mean when you say it. I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

To one person the word "evil" means in a moral sense. It may clash with their religious beliefs for example. Maybe it clashes with their chosen ethical belief system. They might just mean something completely innocuous. I don't think it would be preposterous to think that Dig and Pat Robertson mean something different when they use the word "evil". In fact, you might completely agree.