Octopus Overlords

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.'

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I haven't seen this anywhere else, but seriously?

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.

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.

Kraken wrote:How embarrassing for them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Smoove_B wrote:
2016 is going to be crazy-town.

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.

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!

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.”

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.