| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/11/2005 07:50:55 PM · #451 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
If only all this time and research playing "quote police" had been spent doing something smart... |
Sheesh..........that's gotta smart.... sure hope it doesn't leave a mark!!! |
If it came from someone whose opinion of me I really valued, it probably would smart.
Message edited by author 2005-09-11 21:19:44. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 09:48:24 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
you said yada yada yada
you said yada yada yada
he said yada yada yada
she said yada yada yada
they said yada yada yada
the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker said yada yada yada |
Obsessive much? |
To a degree, perhaps :-).
But no more so than that exhibited by the anti-Bush Liberals.
I consider it to be quid pro quo. Oh, and quite therapeutic, as well. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 10:17:10 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I think the whole polarization of your country is based on rhetoric and a lot more would be accomplished if 'lefts' and 'rights' were to realize that. Celebrate some grey areas for goodness sake and talk about issues instead of thinking that it's one camp shouting at the other. |
Unfortunately, there aren't many gray areas because those on the right in control today in this country are largely from the radical religious right, and for them there is no compromise. Their agenda is dangerous, and for your sake as well as ours, you'd better hope the left in this country wins. Here's what they stand for:
"The Radical Religious Right desires the establishment of an ideal Christian society which requires adherence to the dogma of biblical inerrancy, teaches creationism as science, practices and proclaims the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism, is dominated by the philosophy of getting government off our backs except in the instances of abortion and school prayer where they seek government control on both issues, and is run from top to bottom by politically conservative Fundamentalist Christians. The Radical Religious Right, with its unlikely union of Christian Fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism, seeks a church-dominated society where:
1. abortion is outlawed;
2. homosexuality is returned to the closet;
3. secular humanists and other liberals are run out of government, public education and the media;
4. government ordered prayers and government mandated Bible readings are installed in public school classrooms;
5. defense spending is increased;
6. welfare funding for the poor is abolished; and
7. taxpayer funds are used for private and parochial education.
The goal of much of the Radical Religious Right is a church controlled state or a modern theocracy."
Excerpted from this article.
Then you've got the militaristic, empire-making cabal among the far right, also now in control and sometimes overlapping with the religious extremists, who want nothing less than total domination of the world's vital resources and markets.
Can one compromise with the devil?
Message edited by author 2005-09-11 23:56:04. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 10:25:17 AM · #454 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
To be fair, much of what I hear from those who align themselves as "right" or "left" is rhetoric (both on this site and everywhere else). I think the whole polarization of your country is based on rhetoric and a lot more would be accomplished if 'lefts' and 'rights' were to realize that. Celebrate some grey areas for goodness sake and talk about issues instead of thinking that it's one camp shouting at the other.
I mean, the media is much to blame for this..."red state"? "blue state"? Give me a break. |
What "grey areas" do you think that the left and right have in common that we can celebrate? |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 12:10:00 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I consider it to be quid pro quo. Oh, and quite therapeutic, as well. |
LOL ... I think we've come to an understanding. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 12:22:22 PM · #456 |
yada yada la scala
from ON MY WAY TO WHERE
by Dory Previn
yada yada yada yada yada
let’s stop talking talking talking
wasting precious time
just a lot of empty noise
that isn’t worth a dime
words of wonder
words of whether
should we shouldn’t we
be togehter
yada yada yada yada yada
let’s stop talking talking talking
taking up our lives
saying things that don’t make sense
hoping help arrives
curse my questions
damn your qualms
tomorrow they could be
dropping bombs
and we go yada yada yada yada yada ...
Message edited by author 2005-09-12 12:22:45. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 12:40:21 AM · #457 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
To be fair, much of what I hear from those who align themselves as "right" or "left" is rhetoric (both on this site and everywhere else). I think the whole polarization of your country is based on rhetoric and a lot more would be accomplished if 'lefts' and 'rights' were to realize that. Celebrate some grey areas for goodness sake and talk about issues instead of thinking that it's one camp shouting at the other.
I mean, the media is much to blame for this..."red state"? "blue state"? Give me a break. |
What "grey areas" do you think that the left and right have in common that we can celebrate? |
Bill Moyers got it right:
"We're talking about a powerful religious constituency that claims the right to tell us what's on God's mind and to decide the laws of the land according to their interpretation of biblical revelation and to enforce those laws on the nation as a whole. For the Bible is not just the foundational text of their faith; it has become the foundational text for a political movement.
"[...] what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties - the country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is - and they are driving American politics, using God as a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.
"What's also unique is the intensity, organization, and anger they have brought to the public square. Listen to their preachers, evangelists, and homegrown ayatollahs: Their viral intolerance - their loathing of other people's beliefs, of America's secular and liberal values, of an independent press, of the courts, of reason, science and the search for objective knowledge - has become an unprecedented sectarian crusade for state power. They use the language of faith to demonize political opponents, mislead and misinform voters, censor writers and artists, ostracize dissenters, and marginalize the poor. These are the foot soldiers in a political holy war financed by wealthy economic interests and guided by savvy partisan operatives who know that couching political ambition in religious rhetoric can ignite the passion of followers as ferociously as when Constantine painted the Sign of Christ (the "Christograph") on the shields of his soldiers and on the banners of his legions and routed his rivals in Rome.
"[...] in the pursuit of political power they have cut a deal with America's richest class and their partisan allies in a law-of-the-jungle strategy to "starve" the government of resources needed for vital social services that benefit everyone while championing more and more spending rich corporations and larger tax cuts for the rich.
"This is the crux of the matter: To these fundamentalist radicals there is only one legitimate religion and only one particular brand of that religion that is right; all others who call on God are immoral or wrong. They believe the Bible to be literally true and that they alone know what it means. Behind their malicious attacks on the courts ("vermin in black robes," as one of their talk show allies recently put it,) is a fierce longing to hold judges accountable for interpreting the Constitution according to standards of biblical revelation as fundamentalists define it. To get those judges they needed a party beholden to them. So the Grand Old Party - the GOP - has become God's Own Party, its ranks made up of God's Own People 'marching as to war.'
"Bullies - political bullies, economic bullies and religious bullies - cannot be appeased; they have to be opposed with a stubbornness to match their own. This is never easy; these guys don't fight fair; "Robert's Rules of Order" is not one of their holy texts. But freedom on any front - and especially freedom of conscience - never comes to those who rock and wait, hoping someone else will do the heavy lifting."
Excerpted from 9/11 and the Sport of God
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 05:41:25 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Bill Moyers got it right:
|
Indeed he did :( |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 11:40:07 AM · #459 |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 12:20:40 PM · #460 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Bill Moyers got it right: |
That is quite a condemnation of a political party. I have made similar accusations before, but not so vehemently, or to the same extent (but to violent objection). But an interesting read. Nice to see some home grown analysis. It certainly is a concern.
On a slightly different note, I have before been accused of being a liberal. In the UK, that reflects the political movement of liberalism, ie reduction of state involvement in individual lives. I understand that it means something different in the US, however, and is generally regarded as an insult. Should I have been offended?
Message edited by author 2005-09-15 12:21:13.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 12:28:54 PM · #461 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
To be fair, much of what I hear from those who align themselves as "right" or "left" is rhetoric (both on this site and everywhere else). I think the whole polarization of your country is based on rhetoric and a lot more would be accomplished if 'lefts' and 'rights' were to realize that. Celebrate some grey areas for goodness sake and talk about issues instead of thinking that it's one camp shouting at the other.
I mean, the media is much to blame for this..."red state"? "blue state"? Give me a break. |
What "grey areas" do you think that the left and right have in common that we can celebrate? |
Ha! Exactly...none. The "left" and "right", by definition, have no common ground.
I'm so very sorry that, as Americans, you feel the need to align yourself first, then discuss the issues second.
This world (and your country) cannot be divided into two kinds of people! Don't buy it! |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 12:33:34 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Bill Moyers got it right: |
That is quite a condemnation of a political party. I have made similar accusations before, but not so vehemently, or to the same extent (but to violent objection). But an interesting read. Nice to see some home grown analysis. It certainly is a concern. |
US Politics is so irritating to the core. Why would a country want to give in to the extremists' wishes to divide itself? Where are the real conversations in the USA? I just don't get it. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 12:37:32 PM · #463 |
| You can't have a "real conversation" when one side's positions are based on matters of faith and the other's on the basis of logic. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 12:50:06 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You can't have a "real conversation" when one side's positions are based on matters of faith and the other's on the basis of logic. |
Oh, ok...so I was wrong. It really is that easy to categorize all Americans into two compartments. What was that again? Crazy religious zealots vs. crazy liberal scientists. Hmm, I wonder which category my aunt signed up for when she moved to the USA...must be one or the other.
You're right, continue shouting the rhetoric between the chasm that divides you. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 12:54:03 PM · #465 |
I'm serious ... when one side's political pilosophy is based on matters of religious fundamentalism, it is not possible to argue with them -- argument implies the ability to change one's views based on new information or analysis, and faith-based fundamentalism does not permit this.
As my dad used to characterize it, "My mind's made up -- don't confuse me with the facts." |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 01:07:23 PM · #466 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm serious ... when one side's political pilosophy is based on matters of religious fundamentalism, it is not possible to argue with them -- argument implies the ability to change one's views based on new information or analysis, and faith-based fundamentalism does not permit this.
As my dad used to characterize it, "My mind's made up -- don't confuse me with the facts." |
You're still working on the assumption of "two sides" or " two kinds of people"...ridiculous. It's really engrained in you guys down there. It's kind of creepy. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 01:19:13 PM · #467 |
Extremist right-wing NAZI christian morons, yes those hate-mongerers who should have no say in government simply cause "they're religious"
Only atheists should be allowed to make a decision on what laws should be passed.
Guess what "folks".... Democracy is a dictatorship where 51% of the population tell the other 49% what to do.
The irony, most of what you are accusing the so called "christian-right" of trying to force down your throats. Is in fact, merely an attempt to keep what has been implemented for decades.
Very little "advancement" is being attempted by the right. Mostly, status quo. The truth...
Democract Party - over run by leftist socialists
Republican Party - over run by religious conservatives
BOTH are trying to advance their agendas. Both are trying to tell others how they should live their lives. Both are to be criticized or both should be simply understood as various groups expressing their views thru the democratic process.
I think it so funny, that there is so much bitching about the conservatives for advancements done thru democratic means. (And really very few advancements more accurately put simple stopping or impeding of what the liberals deem advancement. So let's look at some of these moral issues:
1. Ban on Federal funds on fetal stem-cell research - there was no stem-cell research ban as commonly mis-portrayed by the media. There wasn't even a ban on fetal stem-cell research. There was simply a ban on using Federal monies on fetal stem-cell reasearch. The reasons being, questions by much of the population on the right to take life to save life as seen by a large voting constituent. Furthered by the fact that not a single success has been achieved with fetal stem cells (most being too reactive and simply resulting in tumors). Where as numerous successes have been achieved by the use of adult or umbilical cord stem cells. Furthered by strong testimony by numerous researchers who believed that all the benefits of fetal stem cells could be in time achieved with adult stem cells with an additional 10-20 yrs of development. In fact, many recent sucesses have already born this out to be true in a mere 5 yrs time.
2. Exclusion or inclusion of religious items in government facilities or documents. Quite a challenge this one. So much "judeo-christian" aspects in our early historical documents and memorials. Sure you can quote (oh wait, you can't) seperation of church and state in the Constitution. That's right it's "no establishment". This is a very gray area for sure. And there should be a balance. Sadly, there is little agreement to balance and desires to push the pendulum to one side or the other.
You say, "seperation of church and state"...and therefore no Federal funds should go to an organization like The Salvation Army because it's a church. And one might argue it's an establishment of religion if a church's soup kitchen receives Federal funds. However, many argue it is even more so an establishment of religion (or a restriction upon) to refuse a soup kitchen funding simply because it's in a church. The correct process of the Constitutional clause is NOT to not allow funds. But that any church or similar religious or social entity should be able to seek said funds on equal footing. So a church, a mosque, a Masonic Lodge or Elks Lodge should all have equal footing for applying for those funds.
It's even more complicated when an entity like The Salvation Army (which is a church) is sued for discrimination because they wouldn't hire a homosexual employee because it goes against the beliefs of the church. Then they are sued for benefits for the homosexual's partner. I ask you...who is forcing who's morality on whom?
3. As for the gay marriage issue. This is in fact a seperation of church and state. Marriage is a religious sacriment. The concept being a spiritual union. It was merged with the civil/legal concepts of union for simplicity's sake. Now it is causing complex problems.
The truth of the matter, they need to be seperated.
Marriage, should only be recognized by whatever faith the ceremony was performed and according to their beliefs. (ie: Judeo-Christian belief of one man and one woman; Muslim/Mormon beliefs of a man and multiple women, a pagan handfasting ceremony for 1 yr of marriage, or a wife with multiple husbands.) However, those marriages will only be recognized by those faiths. A Mormon should not expect a Catholic to accept his marriage and multiple wives. Or vice-versa.
The claim that I often hear, "what right do you have to stop two people from loving one another". Guess what...no one is. No one is stopping two gay men from loving one another. Those fighting against gay marriage are simply trying to protect their religious sacraments.
The main issue that is really at hand here is the civil/legal benefits and obligations (tax breaks, insurance, inheritance, etc). And these should be covered by a civil incorporation. Very much akin to a business corporation or commune. And it shouldn't matter if it's "one man & one woman", "two men", "a man and 4 women", a "woman and her two men", nor should it even matter that there be sensual love. Two elderly sisters who live together should be able to incorporate as a "shared household". And receive the same benefits.
And marriages, would bring with them zero civil benefits. The only benefits of marriage would be those spiritual benefits prescribed but whatever faith the ceremony was performed in, and likewise would only be recognized by said faith.
This is really the only fair solution.
4. Abortion - now this is an issue that is quite heated. One side says the other is trying to infringe on their rights. The other side sees the one infringing on the rights of another. Most of it stems from the issue and determination of human life and it's value. It is a scientific fact that a baby has a unique DNA sequence differing from both it's parents. Thus it is not the same "tissue". In fact, many complications can arise when the woman's body reacts or even attacks the baby's body. One might argue it's a parasite. The pro-abortion advocates argue that they should have the right to decide what they did with their own bodies. However, there is much scientific evidence that it is not their own body. If such is the case, then few argue that one has a right over another's body. Furthermore, many anti-abortion advocates argue that the woman (in most cases) did get to choose. She made her decision when she had sex. And that she should bear the responsibility of her decisions. And that abortion simply allows one individual to avoid their responsibilities at the expense of another individual. (And before you go stating "rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother" realize that most anti-abortion advocates make allowances for those and even the recent partial-birth abortion had entries written to allow for in the case of physical harm to the mother.) But very few of the total number of abortions are due for those reasons.
So, if you step-back and take a moment to look at the view of pro-life advocates who see this as a seperate entity distinct from the mother and as a human being. And an innoncent life. How can you expect them to NOT advocate it's cessation. To them, it's not a decision about your body. But rather you making a decision about another's. So when a pro-abortion advocate states "what gives you the right to decide what I do with my body" the simple answer "you do...when you try to make a decision concerning another's body....and in this case you're choosing death for the other and we're simply choosing to demand you choose life for the other".
And with so much debate, I find it so odd that the leftist social liberals who are always saying "shouldn't we err on the side of life" and are always "anti-war"...."thousands have died in Iraq". Seem to not want to choose to err on the side of life in this case. And how difficult it is for conservatives to understand the liberals cry of thousands when they're derided for their cry of millions.
THIS IS ALL TO SAY....that right-wing conservatives are not monsters but have reasons for their beliefs and their decisions. They are utilizing the democractic system just as liberals have to expand their views. There has been a strong progression of liberalism in our society...and now there is a strong growth of conservatisms to see a bit of restrain of that progression. But we're becoming a very polarized society. Because neither side will often look at things from the other perspective. Both sides need to give... |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 01:19:47 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
On a slightly different note, I have before been accused of being a liberal. In the UK, that reflects the political movement of liberalism, ie reduction of state involvement in individual lives. I understand that it means something different in the US, however, and is generally regarded as an insult. Should I have been offended? |
Since I also have been called a " left wing liberal" in an insulting "tone" in threads, I would also appreciate an answer to LB's question?
P
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 01:20:23 PM · #469 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You can't have a "real conversation" when one side's positions are based on matters of faith and the other's on the basis of logic. |
True, but guess what...
BOTH sides have their "faith" (emotional based feelings) and BOTH sides have their logic.
Both tend to refuse to see each other's sides of understanding. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 01:39:20 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm serious ... when one side's political pilosophy is based on matters of religious fundamentalism, it is not possible to argue with them -- argument implies the ability to change one's views based on new information or analysis, and faith-based fundamentalism does not permit this.
As my dad used to characterize it, "My mind's made up -- don't confuse me with the facts." |
You're still working on the assumption of "two sides" or " two kinds of people"...ridiculous. It's really engrained in you guys down there. It's kind of creepy. |
I'm working on the assumption that it's those two sides which control the public debate, political, and economic policy control. I certainly agree that there's a (to borrow a term) Silent Majority whose middle ground is left unheard. Whether they will eventually rise in revolt and return the idealogues to academia instead of public office is yet to be determined. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 01:47:24 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm serious ... when one side's political pilosophy is based on matters of religious fundamentalism, it is not possible to argue with them -- argument implies the ability to change one's views based on new information or analysis, and faith-based fundamentalism does not permit this.
As my dad used to characterize it, "My mind's made up -- don't confuse me with the facts." |
You're still working on the assumption of "two sides" or " two kinds of people"...ridiculous. It's really engrained in you guys down there. It's kind of creepy. |
I'm working on the assumption that it's those two sides which control the public debate, political, and economic policy control. I certainly agree that there's a (to borrow a term) Silent Majority whose middle ground is left unheard. Whether they will eventually rise in revolt and return the idealogues to academia instead of public office is yet to be determined. |
But you're perpetuating it...so many of you are, by 'aligning' yourself instead of discussing issues. Media does it, celebrities do it, and many average citizens are doing it...aligning themselves and then fighting or letting others do the fighting for them.
This is not Michael Moore vs. Pat Robertson. All Americans should be embarassed by both those mouthpieces. Tell them to shut up and begin an intelligent conversation. I admit, that's idealistic...but at least begin fighting for American instead of against "the other side". I dunno...
Message edited by author 2005-09-15 13:49:00. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 02:45:10 PM · #472 |
I'll be happy to try and have an intelligent discussion with you on just about any subject. The difference between the "two sides" is that the "liberal scientists" are (at least putatively) open to change based on new rational evidence; religious fundamentalism does not permit the adjustment of one's views, or for that matter, the "live and let live" conservatism on which basis the US was largely founded.
The theocrats have appropriated for themselves the former party of conservative values (Republican) and completely subverted its message of individual liberty and least government into one which defends corporate/stockholder rights over that of the ordinary taxpaying citizen, and which believes it's the Federal governments mission to regulate people's individual choices about what they eat, drink or smoke, and with whom they may have consensual sexual relations. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 03:01:37 PM · #473 |
Sorry, you seem very stuck on the idea that there are two types of Americans...I don't buy it, although it seems to be slowly developing that way.
If, on the other hand, your complaint lies solely with the political party itself, I'd like to ask you whether you feel that the Democrat party fully represents your ideals. If it does, then you must feel incredibly fortunate that a figurehead happens to speak to your every need...if it doesn't, then you must admit that there are many who have aligned themselves with Republicans that also don't feel properly represented. And if it is case # 2, then America (as a whole) needs to begin talking about the whole damn system, instead of continuing to allow itself to be divided by two extremes that don't really speak for most citizens.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2005 03:06:08 PM · #474 |
| No, I don't beleieve the Democrats (especially of late) represent all my ideals either. As a party, the Greens probably come closer, but they're not really welcome at the political table right now. I'd prefer to pick the best parts of which all the sides have to offer, but I'm too lazy to start my own party. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 03:13:34 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
No, I don't beleieve the Democrats (especially of late) represent all my ideals either. As a party, the Greens probably come closer, but they're not really welcome at the political table right now. I'd prefer to pick the best parts of which all the sides have to offer, but I'm too lazy to start my own party. |
So if that is the way most people feel (and some end up voting blue and some vote red), nobody is being truly represented. Fine, that's the way democracy works and it's the same here in Canada. But! In the USA, people are so "aligned" (is my use of the word making my point?) with one party or the other, and those parties seem to have taken such extremes, that the country is hurting as far as political morale goes.
So don't you think that it would be helpful for citizens to stop "signing up" under far left or far right and to begin having intelligent discussions?
I mean, here in Canada, I don't know if most of my friends vote liberal or conservative or something else but I do know where they stand on certain issues. They don't hinge everything on one 'viewpoint' or another.
Am I making any sense? |
|
