Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 60479
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis » Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:30 pm

Whoops!

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03 ... s-dad?lite" target="_blank

Ohio Federal Republicans suddenly supporting gay Marriage? (oh, well, as it turns out my son is gay and he deserves equal treatment under the law)

Well, change has to happen, how it happens, I guess.

One can only hope he stay's republican, keeps his seat, and moves the party back toward a party of human rights as well as liberty.

That said, I still think the gub'ment needs to accept that its business should be limited to interest in legal unions and get out the business of bigotry, in general.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32264
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by El Guapo » Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:02 pm

I think its also plausible that Portman has been favorably inclined (or at least agnostic towards) gay marriage, and now that the political wind is blowing in its favor is now coming out in favor of it. His gay son would then be a useful way to change his formal position while mitigating his loss of support among conservatives (as I would think that even people who are inclined to be against gay marriage would have some sympathy for his position given a gay son).

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20719
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:21 pm

The latest is that Rove predicts a GOP presidential candidate supportive of gay marriage, while Huckabee says Evangelicals would leave the party.

Edit: links for you - Rove and Huckabee
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33721
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken » Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:41 pm

Holman wrote:The latest is that Rove predicts a GOP presidential candidate supportive of gay marriage, while Huckabee says Evangelicals would leave the party.

Edit: links for you - Rove and Huckabee
So it's a win/win for the Republicans then.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32264
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by El Guapo » Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:47 am

Holman wrote:The latest is that Rove predicts a GOP presidential candidate supportive of gay marriage, while Huckabee says Evangelicals would leave the party.

Edit: links for you - Rove and Huckabee
Well, Rove doesn't 'predict' such a candidate - the article says that he "can imagine" the next GOP candidate supporting gay marriage. The next presidential election is a lifetime away, and with the political winds blowing the way they are right now on the issue I think it entirely plausible that the next GOP candidate could indeed be pro-marriage equality.

I think the most likely outcome is that the next GOP candidate (at least formally) opposes DOMA, and perhaps is pro-civil union. I also think the chances that next GOP candidate opposes gay marriage and civil unions are higher than the chances that they support marriage equality.

But I'd agree with Rove that there's a real (say 10%) chance that of a pro-equality GOP candidate in 2016.

Malachite
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Malachite » Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:47 pm

Malachite wrote:How old were the Obama girls in 2008? 10 and 7, right? I can see myself explaining literal vs. allegorical Biblical passages to my son at 10, if he asks, but at 7, there's no way he would have been ready for it.
Well, turns out the appropriate age for this discussion in our household is 9.5 years old. The exact question on Easter morning was "Mom, how could God have made the world in 7 days when the dinosaurs are millions of years old?"

Mind you, the questions asked of the pastor during the children's sermon were "why is there sometimes an H in alleluia?" and "why is there an 'east' in Easter"? Yeah, she gets the language questions, and he saves the theological questions for me...

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 18802
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub » Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:02 pm

O'Reilly republicans vs Limbaugh Republicans:
There are various ways to describe the civil war rising inside the Republican Party: insiders versus outsiders, pragmatists versus true-believers, establishment versus Tea Party. Here’s another: Bill O’Reilly conservatives versus Rush Limbaugh conservatives....

...O’Reilly is a conservative populist, which is to say, he only champions those conservative viewpoints that he believes enjoy mass appeal... While O’Reilly’s own views have shifted, what has remained constant is his tendency to justify those views by reference to the popular will. In 2006 O’Reilly said he opposed gay marriage because “it is clear that most Americans want heterosexual marriage to maintain its special place … Traditional marriage is widely seen as a social stabilizer.” In 2009 he again phrased his opposition in terms of public opinion... And last week he said he supported civil unions, while on gay marriage, “I don’t feel that strongly about it one way or another. I think the states should do it.”

Intellectually, this doesn’t make much sense. There’s a comprehensible argument in support of both civil unions and gay marriage. Or against both. Or even in support of one but not the other. But intellectually, it makes little sense to support civil unions while remaining agnostic on the more symbolically and culturally important question of gay marriage itself. Yet for O’Reilly it makes perfect sense. He opposed gay marriage when he believed the vast majority of Americans did and now backs civil unions because he thinks the vast majority of Americans do. He’s currently undecided on gay marriage because public opinion is split...

...O’Reilly would never have done that, not because he refrains from savaging obscure individuals with whom he disagrees, but because he never goes after a sympathetic target. Limbaugh and O’Reilly both see themselves as four-star generals in America’s culture war. The difference is that Limbaugh launches kamikaze missions. O’Reilly never yells charge unless he has the infantry massed on his side.

You can see the difference in the way the two men respond to people perceived as right-wing extremists. Limbaugh embraces them; O’Reilly disses them.
Of course, the writer goes so far as to compare O'Reilly to Reagan as well, so there is a bit of a slant there...

... but it is similar in tone to the initial article posted, in terms of trying to characterize the party by the players within it, but through the Media figures instead of as generic fox news republicans. I don't see this same effort to characterize the democrats. Is it a subtle nod to the effects of the new right media since Rush and Fox exploded onto the scene in the 90's?
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33721
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken » Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:38 pm

Pyperkub wrote: I don't see this same effort to characterize the democrats. Is it a subtle nod to the effects of the new right media since Rush and Fox exploded onto the scene in the 90's?
This particular characterization probably is a mediacentric way of explaining the turmoil in the R Party. You don't see the same effort for the Ds because their factions are entrenched and balanced. The two candidates vying for the nomination to succeed John Kerry are a white-collar limousine liberal and a blue-collar lunch-bucket liberal. It's a class thing.

To put it in media terms, Jon Stewart would be a limousine liberal and Michael Moore is a lunch-bucket liberal. But you don't see them branded as such because the two factions are long-established and not out to kill each other.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 18802
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:46 pm

A look at how Gingrich wants to characterize himself:
After watching the debate take shape over the last few months, however, Gingrich's focus now is on religious liberty, and he has extremely strong words to describe the danger he sees from gay marriage proponents...

..."The great danger, I think today, is that you're going to see a real drive to outlaw and limit Christianity, to limit it, to say, 'It's ok to be a Christian as long as you're not really Christian.'
I have a lot of issues with this statement, starting with the whole "outlaw" Christianity. The things he has a problem with aren't 'outlawing' Christianity, they tend more towards preventing Government from being used to support Christianity with Government $ in ways that Christianity will exclude citizens that exercise their rights to freedom of religion.

However, that's just my opinion - is this going to be the direction of the Religious Right in the GOP moving forward?
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Rip » Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:17 pm

Pyperkub wrote:A look at how Gingrich wants to characterize himself:
After watching the debate take shape over the last few months, however, Gingrich's focus now is on religious liberty, and he has extremely strong words to describe the danger he sees from gay marriage proponents...

..."The great danger, I think today, is that you're going to see a real drive to outlaw and limit Christianity, to limit it, to say, 'It's ok to be a Christian as long as you're not really Christian.'
I have a lot of issues with this statement, starting with the whole "outlaw" Christianity. The things he has a problem with aren't 'outlawing' Christianity, they tend more towards preventing Government from being used to support Christianity with Government $ in ways that Christianity will exclude citizens that exercise their rights to freedom of religion.

However, that's just my opinion - is this going to be the direction of the Religious Right in the GOP moving forward?
I have no problem as long as they are equally limiting to all religions. When I hear about a class that encourages has students write Jesus on a piece of paper and step on it I find myself pondering whether drawing a picture of Mohamed and stepping on it would be equally acceptable? It is very important that the government be equally supportive or equally unsupportive of ALL religions. At the moment the government seems to be choosing to mock the tenants of some religions while chastizing anyone who mocks others.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20719
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:41 pm

Rip wrote:
I have no problem as long as they are equally limiting to all religions. When I hear about a class that encourages has students write Jesus on a piece of paper and step on it I find myself pondering whether drawing a picture of Mohamed and stepping on it would be equally acceptable? It is very important that the government be equally supportive or equally unsupportive of ALL religions. At the moment the government seems to be choosing to mock the tenants of some religions while chastizing anyone who mocks others.
This was the first I've heard of this, so I went looking.
Poole told the journalists Wednesday that the church has been very influential in his life. He says he has attended Baptist and Pentacostal churches locally.

In his Florida Atlantic University class, Poole reportedly followed an exercise in a book. He says he spelled the name "Jesus," asking students to write the letters on a piece of paper. He then asked the students to put the paper on the floor, then step on it. There were 24 students in the class, according to the teacher. The book was on the syllabus, which had been approved by FAU, he said.

The purpose of the exercise was to emphasize how context is important to communication, and encourage students to engage in discussion.

"Yes, it is sensitive, but the point to drive home to the class is that it is sensitive," he said.

Students would have received credit even if they did not complete the exercise, and few of the students stepped on the papers, according to the professor.
So a single not-very-inspiring professor employed an extraordinarily ham-handed exercise probably intended to demonstrate that words are not things and that the paper is not the idea or somesuch. This is hardly a government-sanctioned war on Christianity (as claimed by every other website that came up in my little search.)

As far as it goes, the exercise itself is perfectly in line with Christian ideas about sacredness and devotion and that words are not themselves the things they represent. The reason "Draw-Mohammad Day" is so much more provocative is that Islam has a huge anxiety about representation, while Xianity doesn't.

Professor Stomp is getting death threats, though, because Today's American Jesus take that shit from nobody.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Rip » Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:24 pm

Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
I have no problem as long as they are equally limiting to all religions. When I hear about a class that encourages has students write Jesus on a piece of paper and step on it I find myself pondering whether drawing a picture of Mohamed and stepping on it would be equally acceptable? It is very important that the government be equally supportive or equally unsupportive of ALL religions. At the moment the government seems to be choosing to mock the tenants of some religions while chastizing anyone who mocks others.
This was the first I've heard of this, so I went looking.
Poole told the journalists Wednesday that the church has been very influential in his life. He says he has attended Baptist and Pentacostal churches locally.

In his Florida Atlantic University class, Poole reportedly followed an exercise in a book. He says he spelled the name "Jesus," asking students to write the letters on a piece of paper. He then asked the students to put the paper on the floor, then step on it. There were 24 students in the class, according to the teacher. The book was on the syllabus, which had been approved by FAU, he said.

The purpose of the exercise was to emphasize how context is important to communication, and encourage students to engage in discussion.

"Yes, it is sensitive, but the point to drive home to the class is that it is sensitive," he said.

Students would have received credit even if they did not complete the exercise, and few of the students stepped on the papers, according to the professor.
So a single not-very-inspiring professor employed an extraordinarily ham-handed exercise probably intended to demonstrate that words are not things and that the paper is not the idea or somesuch. This is hardly a government-sanctioned war on Christianity (as claimed by every other website that came up in my little search.)

As far as it goes, the exercise itself is perfectly in line with Christian ideas about sacredness and devotion and that words are not themselves the things they represent. The reason "Draw-Mohammad Day" is so much more provocative is that Islam has a huge anxiety about representation, while Xianity doesn't.

Professor Stomp is getting death threats, though, because Today's American Jesus take that shit from nobody.
So are you saying we cowtow to Islam BECAUSE they react in an absurd fashion and that Christians are more advanced and mature we don't need to?

Personally I have no problem with it but I do have a problem with the fact that had that paper said Mohamed and not Jesus the reaction, outcry, and response would have been MUCH different. In fact I would bet money it would have never even made it into the class or if it had there would have been major disciplanary response.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20719
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:59 pm

Rip wrote:
So are you saying we cowtow to Islam BECAUSE they react in an absurd fashion and that Christians are more advanced and mature we don't need to?
Nope. I think the professor can have his little exercise and other folks can have their Draw Mohammad day. I'll draw and/or stomp on any words you wish.

I just think the reaction to the professor's exercise (which seems, so far as I can tell, to have been not about religion at all but about the power of words to evoke responses, or something) is overblown. Whatever it was, it certainly was not an attack on Christianity. It was just some sort of weak-tea semiotics.

It's worth pointing out, though, that using "Jesus" is different from using "Mohammad" because probably 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominant culture. I imagine that was the point. Asking a bunch of typical Americans to stomp the Prophet Mo is a rather different sort of exercise.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Rip » Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:07 pm

Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
So are you saying we cowtow to Islam BECAUSE they react in an absurd fashion and that Christians are more advanced and mature we don't need to?
Nope. I think the professor can have his little exercise and other folks can have their Draw Mohammad day. I'll draw and/or stomp on any words you wish.

I just think the reaction to the professor's exercise (which seems, so far as I can tell, to have been not about religion at all but about the power of words to evoke responses, or something) is overblown. Whatever it was, it certainly was not an attack on Christianity. It was just some sort of weak-tea semiotics.

It's worth pointing out, though, that using "Jesus" for the exercise is different from using "Mohammad" because probably 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominant culture. I imagine that was the point.
I would agree, the only point that bothers me is that since 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominated society that doing it with a piece of paper that said Jesus should have been more controversial when in fact we all know it would be a fraction as controversial. Something we should deal with sooner rather than later. A world that feels it necessary to tip toe around Islam is in my opinion a much less free and far less safe than one where we would defend the right to do either one with equal zeal.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20719
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:11 pm

Rip wrote:
Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
So are you saying we cowtow to Islam BECAUSE they react in an absurd fashion and that Christians are more advanced and mature we don't need to?
Nope. I think the professor can have his little exercise and other folks can have their Draw Mohammad day. I'll draw and/or stomp on any words you wish.

I just think the reaction to the professor's exercise (which seems, so far as I can tell, to have been not about religion at all but about the power of words to evoke responses, or something) is overblown. Whatever it was, it certainly was not an attack on Christianity. It was just some sort of weak-tea semiotics.

It's worth pointing out, though, that using "Jesus" for the exercise is different from using "Mohammad" because probably 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominant culture. I imagine that was the point.
I would agree, the only point that bothers me is that since 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominated society that doing it with a piece of paper that said Jesus should have been more controversial when in fact we all know it would be a fraction as controversial. Something we should deal with sooner rather than later. A world that feels it necessary to tip toe around Islam is in my opinion a much less free and far less safe than one where we would defend the right to do either one with equal zeal.
While you were typing, I edited to add that using "Mohammad" wouldn't have served the exercise because the audience *doesn't* revere it the way it does "Jesus".

Poor dopey professor could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had just used "Mom."
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Rip » Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:24 pm

Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
So are you saying we cowtow to Islam BECAUSE they react in an absurd fashion and that Christians are more advanced and mature we don't need to?
Nope. I think the professor can have his little exercise and other folks can have their Draw Mohammad day. I'll draw and/or stomp on any words you wish.

I just think the reaction to the professor's exercise (which seems, so far as I can tell, to have been not about religion at all but about the power of words to evoke responses, or something) is overblown. Whatever it was, it certainly was not an attack on Christianity. It was just some sort of weak-tea semiotics.

It's worth pointing out, though, that using "Jesus" for the exercise is different from using "Mohammad" because probably 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominant culture. I imagine that was the point.
I would agree, the only point that bothers me is that since 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominated society that doing it with a piece of paper that said Jesus should have been more controversial when in fact we all know it would be a fraction as controversial. Something we should deal with sooner rather than later. A world that feels it necessary to tip toe around Islam is in my opinion a much less free and far less safe than one where we would defend the right to do either one with equal zeal.
While you were typing, I edited to add that using "Mohammad" wouldn't have served the exercise because the audience *doesn't* revere it the way it does "Jesus".

Poor dopey professor could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had just used "Mom."
Seems like it would have been simpler to have two pieces one with Obama on it and Bush on the other. I might sign up for that class.

:D

User avatar
Combustible Lemur
Posts: 3689
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Combustible Lemur » Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:03 pm

Rip wrote:
Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
So are you saying we cowtow to Islam BECAUSE they react in an absurd fashion and that Christians are more advanced and mature we don't need to?
Nope. I think the professor can have his little exercise and other folks can have their Draw Mohammad day. I'll draw and/or stomp on any words you wish.

I just think the reaction to the professor's exercise (which seems, so far as I can tell, to have been not about religion at all but about the power of words to evoke responses, or something) is overblown. Whatever it was, it certainly was not an attack on Christianity. It was just some sort of weak-tea semiotics.

It's worth pointing out, though, that using "Jesus" for the exercise is different from using "Mohammad" because probably 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominant culture. I imagine that was the point.
I would agree, the only point that bothers me is that since 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominated society that doing it with a piece of paper that said Jesus should have been more controversial when in fact we all know it would be a fraction as controversial. Something we should deal with sooner rather than later. A world that feels it necessary to tip toe around Islam is in my opinion a much less free and far less safe than one where we would defend the right to do either one with equal zeal.
That doesn't hold up though. In our free and tolerant society it is becoming more frowned upon to to mock and belittle those outside of your social experience. A room full of straight guys is controversial if they are mocking the f word. A room full of white guys is seen as not being able to use the n word.
I agree with the second half, though. I would argue that is what we are fighting for but the tolerant are becoming the Moral Majority, and are becoming less tolerant of intolerance. Which does bother me from the first amendment perspective.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Is Scott home? thump thump thump Crash ......No.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Rip » Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:42 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote:
Rip wrote:
Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
So are you saying we cowtow to Islam BECAUSE they react in an absurd fashion and that Christians are more advanced and mature we don't need to?
Nope. I think the professor can have his little exercise and other folks can have their Draw Mohammad day. I'll draw and/or stomp on any words you wish.

I just think the reaction to the professor's exercise (which seems, so far as I can tell, to have been not about religion at all but about the power of words to evoke responses, or something) is overblown. Whatever it was, it certainly was not an attack on Christianity. It was just some sort of weak-tea semiotics.

It's worth pointing out, though, that using "Jesus" for the exercise is different from using "Mohammad" because probably 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominant culture. I imagine that was the point.
I would agree, the only point that bothers me is that since 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominated society that doing it with a piece of paper that said Jesus should have been more controversial when in fact we all know it would be a fraction as controversial. Something we should deal with sooner rather than later. A world that feels it necessary to tip toe around Islam is in my opinion a much less free and far less safe than one where we would defend the right to do either one with equal zeal.
That doesn't hold up though. In our free and tolerant society it is becoming more frowned upon to to mock and belittle those outside of your social experience. A room full of straight guys is controversial if they are mocking the f word. A room full of white guys is seen as not being able to use the n word.
I agree with the second half, though. I would argue that is what we are fighting for but the tolerant are becoming the Moral Majority, and are becoming less tolerant of intolerance. Which does bother me from the first amendment perspective.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
They become less tolerent of intolerence HERE, but apparently once you leave our great land you can be intolerant and we will justify intolerance and even at time become less tolerant just to make friendly with the intolerant.

User avatar
geezer
Posts: 7317
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Yeeha!

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by geezer » Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:24 pm

Rip wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:
Rip wrote:
Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
So are you saying we cowtow to Islam BECAUSE they react in an absurd fashion and that Christians are more advanced and mature we don't need to?
Nope. I think the professor can have his little exercise and other folks can have their Draw Mohammad day. I'll draw and/or stomp on any words you wish.

I just think the reaction to the professor's exercise (which seems, so far as I can tell, to have been not about religion at all but about the power of words to evoke responses, or something) is overblown. Whatever it was, it certainly was not an attack on Christianity. It was just some sort of weak-tea semiotics.

It's worth pointing out, though, that using "Jesus" for the exercise is different from using "Mohammad" because probably 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominant culture. I imagine that was the point.
I would agree, the only point that bothers me is that since 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominated society that doing it with a piece of paper that said Jesus should have been more controversial when in fact we all know it would be a fraction as controversial. Something we should deal with sooner rather than later. A world that feels it necessary to tip toe around Islam is in my opinion a much less free and far less safe than one where we would defend the right to do either one with equal zeal.
That doesn't hold up though. In our free and tolerant society it is becoming more frowned upon to to mock and belittle those outside of your social experience. A room full of straight guys is controversial if they are mocking the f word. A room full of white guys is seen as not being able to use the n word.
I agree with the second half, though. I would argue that is what we are fighting for but the tolerant are becoming the Moral Majority, and are becoming less tolerant of intolerance. Which does bother me from the first amendment perspective.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
They become less tolerent of intolerence HERE, but apparently once you leave our great land you can be intolerant and we will justify intolerance and even at time become less tolerant just to make friendly with the intolerant.
This idea that liberals are somehow just peachy with Islamic subjugation of women is horsepucky.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26878
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Mafia III

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Rip » Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:46 pm

geezer wrote:
Rip wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:
Rip wrote:
Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
So are you saying we cowtow to Islam BECAUSE they react in an absurd fashion and that Christians are more advanced and mature we don't need to?
Nope. I think the professor can have his little exercise and other folks can have their Draw Mohammad day. I'll draw and/or stomp on any words you wish.

I just think the reaction to the professor's exercise (which seems, so far as I can tell, to have been not about religion at all but about the power of words to evoke responses, or something) is overblown. Whatever it was, it certainly was not an attack on Christianity. It was just some sort of weak-tea semiotics.

It's worth pointing out, though, that using "Jesus" for the exercise is different from using "Mohammad" because probably 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominant culture. I imagine that was the point.
I would agree, the only point that bothers me is that since 95% of the room grew up in a Christian-dominated society that doing it with a piece of paper that said Jesus should have been more controversial when in fact we all know it would be a fraction as controversial. Something we should deal with sooner rather than later. A world that feels it necessary to tip toe around Islam is in my opinion a much less free and far less safe than one where we would defend the right to do either one with equal zeal.
That doesn't hold up though. In our free and tolerant society it is becoming more frowned upon to to mock and belittle those outside of your social experience. A room full of straight guys is controversial if they are mocking the f word. A room full of white guys is seen as not being able to use the n word.
I agree with the second half, though. I would argue that is what we are fighting for but the tolerant are becoming the Moral Majority, and are becoming less tolerant of intolerance. Which does bother me from the first amendment perspective.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
They become less tolerent of intolerence HERE, but apparently once you leave our great land you can be intolerant and we will justify intolerance and even at time become less tolerant just to make friendly with the intolerant.
This idea that liberals are somehow just peachy with Islamic subjugation of women is horsepucky.
Not that they are peachy with it, but they sure bite their tongues well. Very little actual pressure is ever brought upon many of those we arm and fund with the missplaced belief we are buying/earning a long term move toward our beliefs when it comes to human rights and global politics. Seldom do we get our moneies worth and often we would have been better to have not sent the money or the arms.

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 37684
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by hepcat » Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:31 pm

Administrations from both parties have done the same thing for as long as there's been tension in the Middle East.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Combustible Lemur
Posts: 3689
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Combustible Lemur » Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:01 pm

Rip wrote:
Not that they are peachy with it, but they sure bite their tongues well. Very little actual pressure is ever brought upon many of those we arm and fund with the missplaced belief we are buying/earning a long term move toward our beliefs when it comes to human rights and global politics. Seldom do we get our moneies worth and often we would have been better to have not sent the money or the arms.
It would be interesting to see how many foreign aid and advocacy workers are liberal. (peace corps) And I also think it's a war hawk vs, diplomacy thing, more so than liberal vs conservative. Were the politicians who supported mubarak, and the shah, etc concerned with human rights? People tend not to see beyond the crying children on their tvs.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
Last edited by Combustible Lemur on Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Is Scott home? thump thump thump Crash ......No.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33721
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:36 pm

Combustible Lemur wrote: Were the politicians who supported mubarak, and the shah, etc concerned with human rights? People tend not to see beyond the crying children on their tvs.
Cold War geopolitics were a whole different game.

Now we're going to find out if despots were better than (from our perspective, anyway) anarchy and theocracies.

User avatar
Combustible Lemur
Posts: 3689
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Combustible Lemur » Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:54 am

Kraken wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote: Were the politicians who supported mubarak, and the shah, etc concerned with human rights? People tend not to see beyond the crying children on their tvs.
Cold War geopolitics were a whole different game.

Now we're going to find out if despots were better than (from our perspective, anyway) anarchy and theocracies.
True, it's a little more complicated than silly liberal hypocrites.

I haven't seen this anywhere else, but seriously? :doh:
Is Scott home? thump thump thump Crash ......No.

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 39241
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B » Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:59 am

Social conservatives warn Priebus they could abandon GOP
A group of high-profile social conservatives warned Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus in a letter this week that their supporters could abandon the GOP if the party seeks to change its position on social issues, particularly same-sex marriage.

Thirteen social conservatives, representing various influential groups, wrote Priebus ahead of the RNC's quarterly meeting this week in Los Angeles to sternly rebuke the conclusions of a post-election report that advised Republican elected officials to adopt a softer tone toward social issues.
Well...bye

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20719
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:54 am

I think the establishment GOP was hoping to get things retooled before the 2014 primary fights, but it looks like gay marriage and immigration debates are going to make that impossible.

I wonder if it will cost them some of the year-six gains that they could normally expect.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 25297
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by YellowKing » Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:53 pm

A group of high-profile social conservatives warned Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus in a letter this week that their supporters could abandon the GOP if the party seeks to change its position on social issues, particularly same-sex marriage.
Or the flip-side, they lose long-time Republican party members by not taking a softer stance on social issues. Unless something drastic changes, I will be changing my party affiliation to Independent before the midterm elections.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20719
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:28 pm

New Pew polling shows that belief in evolution has dropped rapidly among Republicans.

A majority of Republicans now reject the idea that human beings evolved over time.

Image
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33721
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:02 pm

How embarrassing for them.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 18802
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:12 pm

Kraken wrote:How embarrassing for them.
I wonder if this is a function of chasing moderates, or convincing more folks to fall in line with the party line.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20719
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:01 pm

Pyperkub wrote:
Kraken wrote:How embarrassing for them.
I wonder if this is a function of chasing moderates, or convincing more folks to fall in line with the party line.
Perhaps it's a side effect of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33721
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:02 pm

Upon further reflection: Yes, Republicans bring the average down, but 33% of Americans overall reject evolution, and that's embarrassing for all of us.
Pyperkub wrote:
Kraken wrote:How embarrassing for them.
I wonder if this is a function of chasing moderates, or convincing more folks to fall in line with the party line.
Based upon no evidence whatsoever I interpret it as the latter. It's a tenet of hardline conservatism, therefore real conservatives must believe it.

But they only polled 2000 people. It only takes 73 respondents to move the needle 11%, assuming that 1/3 were Republicans.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17762
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Defiant » Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:21 pm

Actually, I'm fairly suprised it's only 33% of the general population (or that Republicans and Democrats were only 10% different a few years ago). A number of polls from the past 5-10 years show 45-50% of people don't believe in evolution:

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm" target="_blank

User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by em2nought » Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:55 pm

Holman wrote:New Pew polling shows that belief in evolution has dropped rapidly among Republicans.

A majority of Republicans now reject the idea that human beings evolved over time.

Image
Suffers from being poorly named just like global warming, as we are clearly devolving. :mrgreen:
#no collusion #no obstruction #get over it

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 39241
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:08 am

It would seem a new game is afoot - next up for the Republicans, the so-called "Reformicons":
The reformicons argue that they aren't really advocating a shift to the center; their agenda is in a few ways more liberal and in other ways more radically conservative than today's standard version of conservatism. But the force they're inevitably pushing against is the Tea Party and its revanchist outlook on American politics. Any program that even smells like compromise or a rejection of the most extreme version of conservatism will be anathema to the them. That means that any politician who champions the reformicon agenda is going to have to fight against the party's base conservatives, a fight few are willing to take up.
2016 is going to be crazy-town.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32264
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by El Guapo » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:27 am

Smoove_B wrote:
2016 is going to be crazy-town.
2016? We're already there, my friend - Herman Cain was a plausible 2012 GOP contender.

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 60479
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:56 am

Smoove_B wrote:It would seem a new game is afoot - next up for the Republicans, the so-called "Reformicons":
The reformicons argue that they aren't really advocating a shift to the center; their agenda is in a few ways more liberal and in other ways more radically conservative than today's standard version of conservatism. But the force they're inevitably pushing against is the Tea Party and its revanchist outlook on American politics. Any program that even smells like compromise or a rejection of the most extreme version of conservatism will be anathema to the them. That means that any politician who champions the reformicon agenda is going to have to fight against the party's base conservatives, a fight few are willing to take up.
2016 is going to be crazy-town.

I don't know what refromicons are. They sound like transformers, but I would love to be on the conservative side of politics again, so fuck the base and fuck the tea partiers. Go Optimism Primary!

User avatar
Trent Steel
Posts: 8049
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Pain Dome

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Trent Steel » Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:04 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:It would seem a new game is afoot - next up for the Republicans, the so-called "Reformicons":
The reformicons argue that they aren't really advocating a shift to the center; their agenda is in a few ways more liberal and in other ways more radically conservative than today's standard version of conservatism. But the force they're inevitably pushing against is the Tea Party and its revanchist outlook on American politics. Any program that even smells like compromise or a rejection of the most extreme version of conservatism will be anathema to the them. That means that any politician who champions the reformicon agenda is going to have to fight against the party's base conservatives, a fight few are willing to take up.
2016 is going to be crazy-town.

I don't know what refromicons are. They sound like transformers, but I would love to be on the conservative side of politics again, so fuck the base and fuck the tea partiers. Go Optimism Primary!
If the Democrats can come up with an opposing "Democrabots" group, then we'll have a really fun 2016.
18-1™ & 2-0

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 18802
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub » Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:15 pm

I really, really hope that this guy isn't the 21st Century direction of the GOP:
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip, acknowledged Monday that he spoke at a gathering hosted by white-supremacist leaders while serving as a state representative in 2002, thrusting a racial controversy into House Republican ranks days before the party assumes control of both congressional chambers…...

...Back in 1999, Roll Call interviewed white supremacist leader David Duke about the possibility he would seek the House seat vacated by the resignation of Republican Rep. Bob Livingston. As part of that report, reporter John Mercurio also talked to up-and-coming Louisiana politicians, current Sen. David Vitter and current House Majority Whip Steve Scalise…

Another potential candidate, state Rep. Steve Scalise (R), said he embraces many of the same “conservative” views as Duke, but is far more viable.

“The novelty of David Duke has worn off,” said Scalise. “The voters in this district are smart enough to realize that they need to get behind someone who not only believes in the issues they care about, but also can get elected. Duke has proven that he can’t get elected, and that’s the first and most important thing.”
The most important thing to know about David Duke is that he couldn't get elected? Not that he was the founder of a KKK group in LA?

And this guy is now the House Majority Whip?

I hope that even some of our conservative posters think that this is a step backwards for the GOP, and the country in general.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20719
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:54 pm

Pyperkub wrote: The most important thing to know about David Duke is that he couldn't get elected? Not that he was the founder of a KKK group in LA?

And this guy is now the House Majority Whip?

I hope that even some of our conservative posters think that this is a step backwards for the GOP, and the country in general.
The usual response is "But Robert Byrd did the same thing!1!," forgetting that Byrd did it in like 1942.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

Post Reply