Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: War Eagle!!! on May 14, 2008, 08:04:33 PM
-
This is a really good article on Mr. Obama...
Subject: A Black Columnist on Obama
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ :
.........will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??
I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it! If you think I am crazy,. I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the "unknown" candidate.
-
Excellent article to post "War Eagle!!!". I've read some great articles in the past by Ken Blackwell and this article was no exception; I had not read it before.
The last part of the article brings to mind a discussion that I had with a few of my co-workers recently who also wondered about the comparison of Barack Obama to "the anti-Christ". At the risk of venturing into the realm of religion I thought that you (and others) might like to read a summary of reading that I did on this subject just a couple of weeks ago. This is an excerpt from an email that I wrote and sent to a couple of co-workers on 6 May 2008 (all references are to the KJV Bible); I tried to stay very objective in my writing on this subject but you will find a few subjective comments:
...
I did some reading this past weekend to refresh my memory on the anti-Christ since you made the reference below about Obama…you might want to do some reading when you have time. Here are the things that I found out:
The Bible says that there will be many anti-Christs (1 John 2:18, Matthew 24:4, 5, 11, 23, 24) and many people with the Spirit of anti-Christ (1 John 4:3) before the final anti-Christ (Daniel 11:21; Revelation 13:1 thru 10; 2 Thessalonians 2:30) appears. You will know who the anti-Christ(s) and those with the spirit of anti-Christ are because they will all deny that Jesus Christ is God in one way or another (that is that He is part of the Holy Trinity) or they will equate themselves with Jesus Christ in one way or another. They all will be extremely attractive and very popular with everyone; they will be so attractive as to deceive even Christians (Matthew 24:24). And they may even say that they are the Messiah (Matthew 24:4, 5; Mark 13:6; and Luke 21:8). The Gospels are almost unanimous on this last point which really hammers it home.
There are many signs pointing to the end times leading up to the Rapture and the final anti-Christ…one of them is the reformation of Israel as a nation (which happened in May of 1948); others are an explosion of knowledge (which has been happening since the beginning of the 20th Century); the creation of nuclear weapons (Zechariah 14:12); Jerusalem will be divided (Luke 21, I think; the current “Roadmap to Peace” calls for Jerusalem to be divided between Israel and the Palestinians but it has basically been divided since 1948); the ability for worldwide communication (Rev. 11:9,10) will be in place; the Gospel will have been able to be heard by everyone (Matthew 24:14); there will be wars and rumors of wars (Matt. 24:6); earthquakes in diverse places in addition to plagues and famine (Matt. 24:7); and the key sign seems to be the building of the 3rd Temple in Jerusalem (this has been attempted numerous times since 1948 by many Orthodox Jewish groups which are still around and still preparing for the building of the Temple; but it will require the mosque on Temple Mount to be destroyed first; which will, of course, cause a major war to start since it is a holy site for Islam) (Revelations 11: 1-2; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4; Matthew 24: 15-21).
I don’t know what to tell you beyond that other than reading Chapter 24 of Matthew (I like this chapter because it is a direct quote from Jesus Christ and He is pretty clear about it being the end times that He is talking about).
...
-
I'm not a fan of Obama, but come on War Eagle; your article is definitely a work of fiction.
Anything you receive via email that has something to the effect of "I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can!" is a hoax. Don't feel bad about being taken in though; lots of folks buy into this sort of thing. When I was inexperienced in the ways of the interwebs, I too would have bought this line.
"According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ :
.........will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything."
Islam wasn't founded until several hundred years after the book of Revelation (singular, not plural) was finished.
-
I'm not a fan of Obama, but come on War Eagle; your article is definitely a work of fiction.
Anything you receive via email that has something to the effect of "I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can!" is a hoax. Don't feel bad about being taken in though; lots of folks buy into this sort of thing. When I was inexperienced in the ways of the interwebs, I too would have bought this line.
Well, I looked everywhere and couldn't verify the article. Here are a number of interesting articles from Ken Blackwell many of which verify what has been espoused in the e-mail. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008
Islam wasn't founded until several hundred years after the book of Revelation (singular, not plural) was finished.
BINGO! I found that part of this rant disturbing for that exact reason. It's just more hype about the anti-Christ. I don't beleive that Barack's intentionally evil by any means, but I do believe that he would work to destroy a lot of the values and foundations that made this country as great as it is. Not to get all patriotic on you, but it's truly amazing what we have accomplished as a nation in our short history of 231 years. We've surpassed the world in every area, and we're still going strong.
-
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/02/14/the_real_obama?page=full&comments=true (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/02/14/the_real_obama?page=full&comments=true)
Here is the original article. You are right, the anti-christ part should not have been posted. But I really didn't give a crap about that part of the article to be perfectly honest. I don't know enough about the bible to debate that part with you and to be honest I don't really care if people think he is the anti-christ or not. I personally don't; and i think it is foolish that other people do. BUT...I posted the article for all the points leading up to the anti-christ comment. The fact of the matter is that he is the most liberal senator in the senate and no one talks about it. That part of the article is definitely not fiction. If you think it is, you have bought nto the media hype on Obama and do not look at his issues and his senate record.
-
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/02/14/the_real_obama?page=full&comments=true (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/02/14/the_real_obama?page=full&comments=true)
Here is the original article. You are right, the anti-christ part should not have been posted. But I really didn't give a crap about that part of the article to be perfectly honest. I don't know enough about the bible to debate that part with you and to be honest I don't really care if people think he is the anti-christ or not. I personally don't; and i think it is foolish that other people do. BUT...I posted the article for all the points leading up to the anti-christ comment. The fact of the matter is that he is the most liberal senator in the senate and no one talks about it. That part of the article is definitely not fiction. If you think it is, you have bought nto the media hype on Obama and do not look at his issues and his senate record.
Good catch... It was late, and I was tired. :blink:
I agree on all points in the original article. Very few people have actually been able to discuss his positions on anything. He's done a good job of hiding the truth. He's probably one of the least accomplished Senators in America, and he's definitely the "most Left". Too many people get caught up in the hype of his polished demeanor. He'd make a great used car salesman.
-
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/02/14/the_real_obama?page=full&comments=true (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/02/14/the_real_obama?page=full&comments=true)
Here is the original article. You are right, the anti-christ part should not have been posted. But I really didn't give a crap about that part of the article to be perfectly honest. I don't know enough about the bible to debate that part with you and to be honest I don't really care if people think he is the anti-christ or not. I personally don't; and i think it is foolish that other people do. BUT...I posted the article for all the points leading up to the anti-christ comment. The fact of the matter is that he is the most liberal senator in the senate and no one talks about it. That part of the article is definitely not fiction. If you think it is, you have bought nto the media hype on Obama and do not look at his issues and his senate record.
I only called you out about the Anti-Christ thing.
Sounds like we agree on the rest.
There are some sharp posters on here. If you want to be taken seriously in the political forums, be carefull what you cut and paste.
GarMan, you can get all patriotic anytime you want.
-
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/02/14/the_real_obama?page=full&comments=true (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/02/14/the_real_obama?page=full&comments=true)
Here is the original article. You are right, the anti-christ part should not have been posted. But I really didn't give a crap about that part of the article to be perfectly honest. I don't know enough about the bible to debate that part with you and to be honest I don't really care if people think he is the anti-christ or not. I personally don't; and i think it is foolish that other people do. BUT...I posted the article for all the points leading up to the anti-christ comment. The fact of the matter is that he is the most liberal senator in the senate and no one talks about it. That part of the article is definitely not fiction. If you think it is, you have bought nto the media hype on Obama and do not look at his issues and his senate record.
Not to simply reiterate what GarMan posted but good find indeed (I was offline for a while-and GarMan beat me to a reply). And by the way I do not think that Obama is the anti-Christ either...my point was to post (at least part of) what the Good Book says on the subject. One of my work colleagues sent an email to me comparing Obama to the anti-Christ which I thought was very weak (not unlike the last part of the first article that was posted in this thread...no offense intended.)
Some of my colleagues (especially the Democrats) like to forward useless and/or alarmist information out in mass emails and I take great satisfaction in replying back in mass emails just how wrong they are (with facts and figures to prove it).
There's quite a lot of crap in teh ebays and intarwebs about the anti-Christ, the Rapture, and the end times; you really have to be careful of this hype. While "there are many good books" on the subject out there in the ether too as with all things important I prefer to study the source and educate myself. It is trite but true, you never get too old to learn.
...the book of Revelation (singular, not plural) was finished.
Good point and true...my bad.
...
There are some sharp posters on here. If you want to be taken seriously in the political forums, be carefull what you cut and paste.
...
Wow! I'll take that as a compliment, intentional or otherwise.
...
GarMan, you can get all patriotic anytime you want.
Don't encourage him!
-
Don't encourage him!
Are you provokin' me? :box:
-
Anti-Christ? Seriously?
I'm far from an Obama supporter, but this kind of shit pisses me off, actually. I wish people could stick to debating the issues instead of using religion to fear monger. This type of bigoted ignorance will not win the Republicans the nomination. There are too many intelligent people that this type of crap annoys enough to turn them off to be outweighed by the "Got 12" knuckle draggers that buy into this and pass it along to 25 of their friends after perusing the Paul Finebaum Radio Network website. At least I hope.
Some of my colleagues (especially the Democrats) like to forward useless and/or alarmist information out in mass emails and I take great satisfaction in replying back in mass emails just how wrong they are (with facts and figures to prove it).
Again, I mostly consider myself a conservative, but I'm not a homer. I'm pretty sure the right is far more guilty of this particular offense than the left. And it irritates me. I don't want the Republican party to be the party of alarmist e-mails that can quickly be debunked on Snopes yet continue to be forwarded by every rube whose inbox it lands in.
By the way, Obama's not a Muslim. His father whom he never knew was. You can't have it both ways. Either he's associated with the Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Jeremiah Wright, or he prays to Mecca every day and is only pursuing the presidential office so that he can blow it up from within in the name of Allah.
Or I guess he could be the Anti-Christ...
-
Damn Chizad, touched a nerve did they? :poke:
-
I said that I didn't post this beca...fuck it...never mind...
-
I said that I didn't post this beca...fuck it...never mind...
I got it, I wasn't arguing with you particularly. I only commented on that part, because that's the only part I disagree with. That kind of stuff irritates me.
-
Anti-Christ? Seriously?
I'm far from an Obama supporter, but this kind of shit pisses me off, actually. I wish people could stick to debating the issues instead of using religion to fear monger. This type of bigoted ignorance will not win the Republicans the nomination. There are too many intelligent people that this type of crap annoys enough to turn them off to be outweighed by the "Got 12" knuckle draggers that buy into this and pass it along to 25 of their friends after perusing the Paul Finebaum Radio Network website. At least I hope.
Again, I mostly consider myself a conservative, but I'm not a homer. I'm pretty sure the right is far more guilty of this particular offense than the left. And it irritates me. I don't want the Republican party to be the party of alarmist e-mails that can quickly be debunked on Snopes yet continue to be forwarded by every rube whose inbox it lands in.
By the way, Obama's not a Muslim. His father whom he never knew was. You can't have it both ways. Either he's associated with the Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Jeremiah Wright, or he prays to Mecca every day and is only pursuing the presidential office so that he can blow it up from within in the name of Allah.
Or I guess he could be the Anti-Christ...
I did not make my post to imply that I believe that Obama is the anti-Christ (or an anti-Christ). I too believe that this kind of hi-jacking of Christianity for political alarmism is silly (and, in some cases, dangerous). I would have to agree with you to the extent that this type of alarmism is done by both the left and the right (I don't see a difference in the forwarded bullsheit emails that I get in terms of one side sending more than the other), especially with those damn "forward this email to one thousand of your friends" non-sense. Again, you have to study the source and educate yourself. But, I'd also agree with you that it won't do any good for any Republicans to promote this kind of religious-based bigotry.
I am bloody well aware that Obama is not a Muslim. And I don't give a rat's ass if you think that I'm a homer whatever the fuck that means. If it's a Conservative Republican then count me as one.
What really grinds my gears are people who can't pick a political party!
-
homer:
Someone who shows blind loyalty to a team or organization, typically ignoring any shortcomings or faults they have.
I guess I'm one of your gear-grinders. I was an officer in AU College Republicans. If I absolutely had to pick one party now it'd probably have to be Libertarian, although I don't agree with every single stance in their party line either. I just don't see everything as that black and white. There are only and exactly two alternatives for all issues that face mankind. You have to agree 100% with the official party line on all issues whether they overlap or not. You are given your opinion before you're allowed to think about it for yourself. You can't be opposed to gun control AND the war on drugs. You can't be pro-capitalism/free market AND think it's time to explore alternative fuel sources. You can't support the death penalty AND a woman's right to choose. You can't be against socialized medicine AND support stem cell research.
Every politician who is a member of the political party I support can do no wrong and every thing the other party does is in the name of pure evil.
Sports homerism does no harm. Political homerism is extremely dangerous in my opinion.
-
homer:
Someone who shows blind loyalty to a team or organization, typically ignoring any shortcomings or faults they have.
...
I would not consider myself a political "homer" as defined but...
...
If I absolutely had to pick one party now it'd probably have to be Libertarian, although I don't agree with every single stance in their party line either.
...
I'd rather vote for a Republican (or even a proven conservative Democrat) than throw my vote away on some third party Libertarian or Constitution or Whig Party candidate who has a slim to zero chance of winning an election...that kind of voting only serves to help the opposition.
...
I just don't see everything as that black and white. There are only and exactly two alternatives for all issues that face mankind. You have to agree 100% with the official party line on all issues whether they overlap or not. You are given your opinion before you're allowed to think about it for yourself. You can't be opposed to gun control AND the war on drugs. You can't be pro-capitalism/free market AND think it's time to explore alternative fuel sources. You can't support the death penalty AND a woman's right to choose. You can't be against socialized medicine AND support stem cell research. Every politician who is a member of the political party I support can do no wrong and every thing the other party does is in the name of pure evil.
Sports homerism does no harm. Political homerism is extremely dangerous in my opinion.
Fair enough however you sound more like a Democrat here in discussing grey areas when there are some absolutes for good reasons. For example, Democrats (and their activist judge friends), want to redifine marriage. Marriage is and always has been the union of one man and one woman in this country. The purpose for that definition is to incentivize and promote starting a healthy family and continue the traditional family values that make this nation strong from the family outward. Now, some states define that as a union between two women or two men by what I would consider capricious, judicial fiat contrary to the will of the people...what's next?! Once you go down that road of breaking down standards there's no end to how far one can define the "grey area".
No, there's not always only and exactly two alternatives to each given issue but there usually is a conservative viewpoint and a socialist viewpoint (I won't say liberal because that is too gracious and incorrect regarding the current Dem party). I don't agree with John McCain 100 percent but he's going to be the Republican candidate so you can either vote for him...vote for Obama...throw your vote away for a useless third party candidate...or not vote for a presidential candidate and vote down ticket...or stay at home and not vote at all. There's five choices for you on election day...no grey area at all.
And, no, I don't march lock-step with the Republican party on all issues but you have to educate yourself and make your opinions known to your candidates and elected officials; county, city, state, and federal. You're right in that you should not take your opinions and issue-oriented thinking from whatever party you support...that's the easy road and far too many people in this country do just that because it IS easy...most of my Democrat colleagues are quite guilty of this kind of sheeple mentality!
At any rate; I find some of your examples above vexing but apart from that we may agree on more than we disagree.
-
homer:
Someone who shows blind loyalty to a team or organization, typically ignoring any shortcomings or faults they have.
I guess I'm one of your gear-grinders. I was an officer in AU College Republicans. If I absolutely had to pick one party now it'd probably have to be Libertarian, although I don't agree with every single stance in their party line either. I just don't see everything as that black and white. There are only and exactly two alternatives for all issues that face mankind. You have to agree 100% with the official party line on all issues whether they overlap or not. You are given your opinion before you're allowed to think about it for yourself. You can't be opposed to gun control AND the war on drugs. You can't be pro-capitalism/free market AND think it's time to explore alternative fuel sources. You can't support the death penalty AND a woman's right to choose. You can't be against socialized medicine AND support stem cell research.
Every politician who is a member of the political party I support can do no wrong and every thing the other party does is in the name of pure evil.
Sports homerism does no harm. Political homerism is extremely dangerous in my opinion.
Just throwing in my 2 cents...
By the purest definition, true Conservatives are gear-grinders who understand cause and effect relationships and the science behind logic and reason. For the most part, they are Jeffersonian Liberals. At least from my perspective, they act with historical context favoring traditional approaches with proven track records. This is the reason most families run their households conservatively, even among liberals.
On the other hand, Modern American Liberalism is driven primarily by emotion and feelings. Their concept of Liberalism has less to do with the classical definition and more to do with "change for the sake of change" without much regard for the logical outcomes resulting from those changes. Any change is better as long as the force driving that change is well-intentioned. They seem to rarely reference history to understand the mistakes and successes of past generations and even entire civilizations, for that matter. Consider their fetish with attempting to guarantee outcomes versus guaranteeing equal opportunity. It just doesn't work in a free society.
Libertarians seem to extend conservative reasoning to the point of anarchy, which I admit looks promising when it comes to “free will,” but my concern is extending that “free will” concept to the masses of which are products of our merit-less gubme’t skewl system. When the lowest common denominator can’t read, write, do simple math or distinguish between right and wrong, “free will” becomes dangerous.
The parties are just fucked.
-
...
I was an officer in AU College Republicans.
...
By the bye, congratulations on your past position. But what happened to drive you away from the Republican Party and into the Loser-tarian camp?
-
I'd rather vote for a Republican (or even a proven conservative Democrat) than throw my vote away on some third party Libertarian or Constitution or Whig Party candidate who has a slim to zero chance of winning an election...that kind of voting only serves to help the opposition.
Agreed... We can't have an effective third party in this country until we revise the election process. We can't have a minority elected official and expect that person to be an effective leader.
-
Fair enough however you sound more like a Democrat here in discussing grey areas when there are some absolutes for good reasons.
I think he was referencing the fallacies of the party-line absolutes, but I'll let him clear that up for himself. There are absolutes, and there's nothing wrong with looking at issues as black or white, right or wrong. The Kerry-like "nuances" introduced in 2004 are nothing more than opportunities to excuse yourself from lacking a strong value system. It's spineless, weak, gutless, deadbeat politics.
-
Agreed... We can't have an effective third party in this country until we revise the election process. We can't have a minority elected official and expect that person to be an effective leader.
Racist!
-
By the bye, congratulations on your past position. But what happened to drive you away from the Republican Party and into the Loser-tarian camp?
By the way, kirkAU was an officer along with me.
As I said before, I'm not a card-carrying Libertarian either.
But namely, the nanny-state conservative Republicans seem to favor grinds my gears. Politicians are some of the most morally bankrupt individuals in society. I don't want hypocrites enforcing morals on me. A lot of Republicans would just as soon throw Separation of Church and state out the window. Conversely, many liberals take it to the other extreme with wanting to ban the word Christmas and Christmas trees, moments of silence and whatnot. But there's no liberals arguing that point with me so I'll stick with you guys. Conservatives are the ones blocking bills like the gourmet beer bill and any chance at our state ever getting a lottery, in order to enforce their religious beliefs (not even held amongst the majority of Christians) upon us as law of the land.
Fuck censorship. Yes liberals freak out when something isn't PC enough for their likings, but Conservatives flip their shit over four letter words and nipples. Many even aren't satisfied with ratings systems, but rather believe there is no place in society for them (See AUNation).
And finally the thinly veiled bigotry held by most conservatives. Again, sure liberals can go overboard with political correctness, affirmative action and all of that. No I don't believe that wanting to secure our southern border from illegal immigrants means you hate Mexicans. Yes, I think things like quotas are bullshit. But many arguments against these things, while I may even agree with the principle argument trying to be made, almost always end up based on some bigoted point of view where I end up going "Wait, you had me until you said (fill in racist comment here)".
You brought up for example gay marriage. Seriously, who gives a shit? Gay dudes are gonna fuck. You can't stop it no matter how much the idea of the act may disgust you. Might as well let them settle down and go through the same hell straight dudes have to. Might as well keep them from hitting on you in a bar by being tied down. To paraphrase Louis C.K. I'd understand if gay dudes were just everywhere. "Ah God dammit, every time I try to mow the lawn, I gotta cut around you faggots butt fucking." Or when you're trying to eat your cereal in the morning there were two dudes touching dicks over your spoon. "Ah come on, I'm late for work, I don't have time for this shit." The point is, people may not do shit that fits your moral standard, but as long as no one's getting hurt by it and it doesn't affect you, who gives a fuck really? Despite what you may believe, gay people are still people. I work with three. I don't have to think it's cool to realize that it's fucked up to deny a certain faction of society a basic right like marriage, tax benefits and all, just because you don't approve of what kind of kinky shit a person is into. If you want to take the slippery slope argument that if we allow this "What's next, allow child molesters, inter-species marriage?" (which is dumb), then you also must accept that the government regulating how you can and can't fuck (between consenting adults) is a scarier slope. Also spare me the sanctity of marriage bullshit until the divorce rate amongst straight couples at least levels off with the divorce rate of gay couples.
-
By the bye, congratulations on your past position. But what happened to drive you away from the Republican Party and into the Loser-tarian camp?
I never held a post in the party, but I was driven away from the Republican Party because they sold their fiscal conservative values to the religious right for votes.
-
I think he was referencing the fallacies of the party-line absolutes, but I'll let him clear that up for himself. There are absolutes, and there's nothing wrong with looking at issues as black or white, right or wrong. The Kerry-like "nuances" introduced in 2004 are nothing more than opportunities to excuse yourself from lacking a strong value system. It's spineless, weak, gutless, deadbeat politics.
For this particular argument that is what I was referring to as well...not blind, party-line absolutes.
-
I never held a post in the party, but I was driven away from the Republican Party because they sold their fiscal conservative values to the religious right for votes.
Bingo.
-
By the way, kirkAU was an officer along with me.
As I said before, I'm not a card-carrying Libertarian either.
...
You certainly sound like one card-carrying or not.
...
You brought up for example gay marriage. Seriously, who gives a shit? Gay dudes are gonna fuck. You can't stop it no matter how much the idea of the act may disgust you. Might as well let them settle down and go through the same hell straight dudes have to. Might as well keep them from hitting on you in a bar by being tied down. To paraphrase Louis C.K. I'd understand if gay dudes were just everywhere. "Ah God dammit, every time I try to mow the lawn, I gotta cut around you faggots butt fucking." Or when you're trying to eat your cereal in the morning there were two dudes touching dicks over your spoon. "Ah come on, I'm late for work, I don't have time for this shit." The point is, people may not do shit that fits your moral standard, but as long as no one's getting hurt by it and it doesn't affect you, who gives a fuck really? Despite what you may believe, gay people are still people. I work with three. I don't have to think it's cool to realize that it's fucked up to deny a certain faction of society a basic right like marriage, tax benefits and all, just because you don't approve of what kind of kinky shit a person is into. If you want to take the slippery slope argument that if we allow this "What's next, allow child molesters, inter-species marriage?" (which is dumb), then you also must accept that the government regulating how you can and can't fuck (between consenting adults) is a scarier slope. Also spare me the sanctity of marriage bullshit until the divorce rate amongst straight couples at least levels off with the divorce rate of gay couples.
...
I don't really disagree with you on anything up to the point of what you wrote above. It is exactly this kind of moral relativism that is causing the marriage problems, divorces, and the breakdown of values of this nation.
No one is saying what you do in your bedroom should be regulated, if you want to fuck a dog or garden furniture then by all means have at it...what I am saying is the definition of what a marriage IS has been defined for a reason (see my post above).
-
For this particular argument that is what I was referring to as well...not blind, party-line absolutes.
I was talking about party-line absolutes, but I do think there are gray areas within those party line absolutes.
For example, liberals will say war is never justified, many conservatives will say war is always justified. I happen to find that issue to not be a black and white absolute.
-
I never held a post in the party, but I was driven away from the Republican Party because they sold their fiscal conservative values to the religious right for votes.
I can't say that I disagree with you on that...and the Republicans will answer for it this fall. But that does not mean I am going to sit at home on election day because of it; you have to be pro-active and let them know what's wrong. Voting a third party is a waste of time at this point.
-
I was talking about party-line absolutes, but I do think there are gray areas within those party line absolutes.
For example, liberals will say war is never justified, many conservatives will say war is always justified. I happen to find that issue to not be a black and white absolute.
This is a very subjective, issue-oriented example. From a rational standpoint war is always an option to any disagreement; it only becomes a non-option when one is thinking from an emotional standpoint (I'd refer to GarMan's excellent post on definitions above).
I understand what you are saying but that kind of rationale for voting (or not voting or third-party voting) will help put Obama into the White House.
As I said earlier; I don't agree with McCain 100 percent but when it comes to that 3am crisis call to the White House I'd rather him answer it...and when it comes to selecting judges for the Supreme Court (given the realistic candidates that will be running for president this fall) I'd rather him make the choices.
-
I never held a post in the party, but I was driven away from the Republican Party because they sold their fiscal conservative values to the religious right for votes.
I don't know if that's true. I do know that the current batch of Repubicraps forgot about the Conservative base that brought them into power, but I don't see where they sold out to the "religious right" as the media likes to portray. For as long as I can remember, those “evil” Christians have always been Conservative, and Conservatives tend to favor the Republican party. It was the Left and the media who made an issue over religion, and as far as I’m concerned, that was just their way to blame somebody else for them losing elections. They have done a damn good job demonizing religion, which is probably another reason we have another RINO/Neo-Con on the Republican ticket. Let’s see… What did they throw around this year? There was Mormon and the cultist accusations to vilify Romney… They used Evangelical to slander Huckabee… You could argue that Obama’s situation with his pastor was “equal time”, but the media knew about it and kept it quiet for more than a year before “evil” right-wing talk radio broke that story. They were forced into reporting it, and even then, they did their best to underplay it.
-
I was talking about party-line absolutes, but I do think there are gray areas within those party line absolutes.
For example, liberals will say war is never justified, many conservatives will say war is always justified. I happen to find that issue to not be a black and white absolute.
You're playing with 50,000 foot generalizations here. Some of those same "gray area" liberals called Hitler, "Europe's problem." Later out of necessity, they had to revise their definition and refer to him as, "Churchill's problem." Of course, he conquered most of Europe by then and started bombing raids on London. How many millions died because we were ignoring the absolutes and playing in nuanced gray areas? The same is essentially true with Iraq. Over 350,000 bodies have been found in mass graves throughout that country, and we continue to let the UN dictate global diplomacy. We're fuckin' doomed!
-
I don't know if that's true. I do know that the current batch of Repubicraps forgot about the Conservative base that brought them into power, but I don't see where they sold out to the "religious right" as the media likes to portray. For as long as I can remember, those “evil” Christians have always been Conservative, and Conservatives tend to favor the Republican party. It was the Left and the media who made an issue over religion, and as far as I’m concerned, that was just their way to blame somebody else for them losing elections. They have done a damn good job demonizing religion, which is probably another reason we have another RINO/Neo-Con on the Republican ticket. Let’s see… What did they throw around this year? There was Mormon and the cultist accusations to vilify Romney… They used Evangelical to slander Huckabee… You could argue that Obama’s situation with his pastor was “equal time”, but the media knew about it and kept it quiet for more than a year before “evil” right-wing talk radio broke that story. They were forced into reporting it, and even then, they did their best to underplay it.
I was speaking specifically to the Republican Party's carrot/stick routine with gay marriage amendments to lure out the Christian voting blocks during Bush's 2nd run at the WH.
-
I was speaking specifically to the Republican Party's carrot/stick routine with gay marriage amendments to lure out the Christian voting blocks during Bush's 2nd run at the WH.
Well, true dat, but I don't think it had that much of an effect. We should just exterminate all gays. Either that or recognize their mental disorder and treat them accordingly. I mean, if we're going to recognize one sexual proclivity, why not recognize them all?
-
Well, true dat, but I don't think it had that much of an effect. We should just exterminate all gays. Either that or recognize their mental disorder and treat them accordingly. I mean, if we're going to recognize one sexual proclivity, why not recognize them all?
Re: My earlier comments on bigotry.
-
Re: My earlier comments on bigotry.
Well ain't THAT a case of the pot calling the kettle black! Jeez, just look at your own signature for bigotry "AUChizad"!
"When God gives you AIDS (and God does give you AIDS by the way), make LemonAIDS."
-Sarah Silverman
-
Well ain't THAT a case of the pot calling the kettle black! Jeez, just look at your own signature for bigotry "AUChizad"!
So quoting a stand-up comedian's humorous variation on the "Life Hands You Lemons" adage of when you get a shitty hand in life, make the best of it = advocating genocide in a political debate. Got it.
Who is that statement bigoted against by the way? AIDS victims?
-
So quoting a stand-up comedian's humorous variation on the "Life Hands You Lemons" adage of when you get a shitty hand in life, make the best of it = advocating genocide in a political debate. Got it.
Who is that statement bigoted against by the way? AIDS victims?
She's a comedian?
-
So quoting a stand-up comedian's humorous variation on the "Life Hands You Lemons" adage of when you get a shitty hand in life, make the best of it = advocating genocide in a political debate. Got it.
Who is that statement bigoted against by the way? AIDS victims?
In all seriousness it is a contemptuous attempt at black humor and there is a hint of bigotry against Christianity and Judaism in it, albeit veiled. God does not give one AIDS; one gets it from degenerate behavior but I guess in a Libertarian "do-what-the-fuck-you-want-to-do-as-long-as-it-feels-right-and-doesn't-effect-somebody-else-world" it's ok.
-
Well, true dat, but I don't think it had that much of an effect. We should just exterminate all gays. Either that or recognize their mental disorder and treat them accordingly. I mean, if we're going to recognize one sexual proclivity, why not recognize them all?
Re: My earlier comments on bigotry.
I'm guessing that you either completely missed the sarcasm and point of that comment or you just ignored it. Bigotry has absolutely nothing to do with it. The Left has this little fetish where they have to go around hyphenating everyone’s Americanism, and they do it by race, creed, color, sexual orientation/proclivity, gender, economic status, handicap, social status, physical appearance, employment status, body type, shoe size, etc, etc, etc… It’s absolutely ridiculous. Then, they establish separate values and priorities for each group making them issues in the next campaign, blaming America for their “problems” and accusing those mean-old Conservatives (aka white, heterosexual, Christian, males) of bigotry. I’ve had my fill of that crap! The messages are all confused and don’t make any sense. I’m supposed to recognize people for their differences, and I’m not supposed to recognize people for their differences. I’m supposed to treat everyone as equal and not treat everyone as equal. Everybody wants equal rights, but some “require” special more-equal rights. Pardon me for calling a spade, a spade, but enough is enough.
By the way, if you understand the origin of the spade comment, you know that race has nothing to do with it.
-
And sometimes, this ridiculousness just falls in your lap. You don't even have to look for it.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/20/news/money_blind/index.htm?cnn=yes
Paper money unfair to blind - court
Federal appeals court says Treasury Department is violating the law by keeping dollars the same size and feel.
By Jessica Dickler, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: May 20, 2008: 3:38 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the U.S. Treasury Department is violating the law by failing to design and issue currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired people.
Here we go again. The "bigoted" United States is unfairly excluding visually-impaired-Americans from being able to count their money. It must be those damn Conservatives again!
And here's another one for you...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356592,00.html
Boston’s Children’s Hospital bills itself as the hospital for children — and now it’s also the hospital for children who want a sex change...
Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at the hospital, has launched a clinic for transgendered kids — boys who feel like girls, girls who want to be boys — and he’s opening his doors to patients as young as 7.
Yes... Those poor transgendered-American kids need help too! The "enlightened" Boston Children's Hospital is there to save these poor confused soles. I'm certain that those evil "bigoted" Conservatives will try to stop them.
-
And sometimes, this ridiculousness just falls in your lap. You don't even have to look for it.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/20/news/money_blind/index.htm?cnn=yes
Here we go again. The "bigoted" United States is unfairly excluding visually-impaired-Americans from being able to count their money. It must be those damn Conservatives again!
And here's another one for you...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356592,00.html
Yes... Those poor transgendered-American kids need help too! The "enlightened" Boston Children's Hospital is there to save these poor confused soles. I'm certain that those evil "bigoted" Conservatives will try to stop them.
What does this have to do with wanting to exterminate all gays? When did I advocate any kind of ridiculous PC crap like your examples, as you're suggesting I did?
-
What does this have to do with wanting to exterminate all gays? When did I advocate any kind of ridiculous PC crap like your examples, as you're suggesting I did?
You did throw out the "bigotry" comment regarding Conservatives earlier. I'm just tired of hearing about it and catching the subtle and direct accusations that get tossed around so easily. It's perfectly acceptable to stereotype those evil Conservatives, but when we have our fill and lash out, we're always the ones in the wrong.
-
You did throw out the "bigotry" comment regarding Conservatives earlier. I'm just tired of hearing about it and catching the subtle and direct accusations that get tossed around so easily. It's perfectly acceptable to stereotype those evil Conservatives, but when we have our fill and lash out, we're always the ones in the wrong.
I also clearly said that the kind of PC bullshit you are referring to is ridiculous. What I said is that often Conservatives try to present an argument based on the issues, then out slips out something like "We should just exterminate all gays" that exposes their motives.
-
I also clearly said that the kind of PC bullshit you are referring to is ridiculous. What I said is that often Conservatives try to present an argument based on the issues, then out slips out something like "We should just exterminate all gays" that exposes their motives.
What you claim to have meant was not clear by your explanations. Nobody is actually advocating the extermination of gays. That was merely a play into your ridiculous stereotype regarding Conservatism and bigotry. It was also a silly assertion that the gay marriage issue wouldn't exist if gays didn't exist. That's not a "motive". It's just a silly comment. You also can't seem to recognize that you're guilty of your own concept of bigotry by stereotyping an entire group (Conservatives) based on your narrow-minded perceptions (bigotry) of that group. It seems to be a common practice among Liberals, and I'm a little surprised to see it come out of a so-called Libertarian.
To get back to your hot topic, the outward appearance and intentions of gay marriage may seem legit, and with your current Libertarian view of "do anything you want as long as it doesn't affect me", it probably seems fine. The concept of gay marriage doesn't really bother me as much as the logical consequence of accepting, normalizing and mainstreaming homosexuality. I'm more than a little tired of being forced to accept it. The movement has taken an in-your-face approach, and it seems perfectly acceptable for them to constantly challenge the standards, morals and values of everyone else. Of course if we say anything, we're bigots, but they obviously have a free ride.
One final point on the topic... Why stop at homosexual and transgender Americans? What about group relationships? What about lawn furniture? What about your dog? I mean, it’s your dog. If the prevailing argument is that homosexuality is a naturally occurring condition, couldn’t the same argument be applied to other conditions that are currently recognized as abnormalities? Consider things like autism, retardation and other disorders.
-
God does not give one AIDS; one gets it from degenerate behavior
I hate to butt into your pissing match with Chad, but I wouldn't make the above-quoted blanket statement. There are plenty of non-degenerate blood transfusion cases of AIDS.
-
I hate to butt into your pissing match with Chad, but I wouldn't make the above-quoted blanket statement. There are plenty of non-degenerate blood transfusion cases of AIDS.
No, God created it to punish fags...but wait, then I guess he does...
Anyway, all that huffing and puffing about how I'm bigoted towards conservatives for saying that many amongst them are bigoted themselves, and then trying to associate me with over-the-top leftist political correctness is a wasted effort.
I was asked what has turned me off of the Republican party, and one of several reasons I listed happened to be that a certain faction of conservatives (read not all by any means) are in fact bigoted. You think the Imperial Wizard of the KKK votes Democrat? I'm just saying that until the Republican party effectively distances itself from this image, it will be listed as one of the things that turns me off of the party.
-
I hate to butt into your pissing match with Chad, but I wouldn't make the above-quoted blanket statement. There are plenty of non-degenerate blood transfusion cases of AIDS.
That's true.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure
Let's see... In 2005, there were 27,629 reported cases of aids attributable to degenerate behavior. There were another 12,388 reported cases spread through risky degenerate behavior, and another 523 cases attributable to blood transfusions, hemophilia, perinatal and undisclosed. Hmmmmm... Almost 99% of all new reported cases are the consequences of risky behavior. Only 1.3% can be attributed to the innocent/undisclosed category.
I would suggest that the "above-quoted blanket statement" is fairly accurate.
-
That's true.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure
Let's see... In 2005, there were 27,629 reported cases of aids attributable to degenerate behavior. There were another 12,388 reported cases spread through risky degenerate behavior, and another 523 cases attributable to blood transfusions, hemophilia, perinatal and undisclosed. Hmmmmm... Almost 99% of all new reported cases are the consequences of risky behavior. Only 1.3% can be attributed to the innocent/undisclosed category.
I would suggest that the "above-quoted blanket statement" is fairly accurate.
No, it's not.
-
Anyway, all that huffing and puffing about how I'm bigoted towards conservatives for saying that many amongst them are bigoted themselves, and then trying to associate me with over-the-top leftist political correctness is a wasted effort.
I was asked what has turned me off of the Republican party, and one of several reasons I listed happened to be that a certain faction of conservatives (read not all by any means) are in fact bigoted. You think the Imperial Wizard of the KKK votes Democrat? I'm just saying that until the Republican party effectively distances itself from this image, it will be listed as one of the things that turns me off of the party.
You're not following along, but let's try this again.
And finally the thinly veiled bigotry held by most conservatives.
Did you use the word, "most"? You can't have it both ways, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. If you understood the history of civil rights in this country, you'd quickly discover that it was primarily the Democrats who blocked civil rights legislation year-after-year. You'd also learn that those KKK members actually reside in the Democrat party. Don't forget about Senator Byrd who is still serving from West Virginia. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/sen-robert-byrd.html You can't help but wonder how many lynchings he participated in...
Seriously, read up on your history. You'd be surprised by the facts. Of course, the Democrats have done a good job of hijacking our schools and turning them into Liberal government indoctrination centers. They've also made a complete shift since the '60s. It wasn't a Republican President who ordered the investigation of Martin Luther King Jr. Come to think of it, it wasn't a Democrat who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. History tells a very different story than what popular culture would have you believe. I admit that Republicans are saddled with a concept of a Conservatism that implies bigotry and racism, but the facts tell a completely different story. Conservatism is just the opposite and holds the concept of equality to a much higher standard than you seem to understand.
-
No, it's not.
I guess the CDC has their numbers wrong. You might want to give 'em a call and set 'em skrait... :rofl:
-
You're not following along, but let's try this again.
Did you use the word, "most"? You can't have it both ways, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. If you understood the history of civil rights in this country, you'd quickly discover that it was primarily the Democrats who blocked civil rights legislation year-after-year. You'd also learn that those KKK members actually reside in the Democrat party. Don't forget about Senator Byrd who is still serving from West Virginia. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/sen-robert-byrd.html You can't help but wonder how many lynchings he participated in...
Seriously, read up on your history. You'd be surprised by the facts. Of course, the Democrats have done a good job of hijacking our schools and turning them into Liberal government indoctrination centers. They've also made a complete shift since the '60s. It wasn't a Republican President who ordered the investigation of Martin Luther King Jr. Come to think of it, it wasn't a Democrat who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. History tells a very different story than what popular culture would have you believe. I admit that Republicans are saddled with a concept of a Conservatism that implies bigotry and racism, but the facts tell a completely different story. Conservatism is just the opposite and holds the concept of equality to a much higher standard than you seem to understand.
I understand just fine. Again, you're throwing irrelevant statements at me. I explained what has turned me off with the current climate of the Republican party. Pieces of history from before I was born has no bearing on whether or not most bigots relate to the Republican party today.
-
I guess the CDC has their numbers wrong. You might want to give 'em a call and set 'em skrait... :rofl:
I trust their data. I'm simply maintaining my position that the blanket statement attributing all AIDS patients' condition to "degenerate behavior" is incorrect.
-
I understand just fine. Again, you're throwing irrelevant statements at me. I explained what has turned me off with the current climate of the Republican party. Pieces of history from before I was born has no bearing on whether or not most bigots relate to the Republican party today.
Well, I really don't know what you think you're talking about. The "current climate" and "today"? Are you serious? Historical context is "irrelevant"??? Like I suggested, popular culture seems to have skewed your judgement here. Facts are irrelevant. Only perceptions matter. :blink:
-
I trust their data. I'm simply maintaining my position that the blanket statement attributing all AIDS patients' condition to "degenerate behavior" is incorrect.
OK... You're right. Only 98.7% of all new cases can be attributed to degenerate behavior. There we go... :thumbsup:
-
Well, I really don't know what you think you're talking about. The "current climate" and "today"? Are you serious? Historical context is "irrelevant"??? Like I suggested, popular culture seems to have skewed your judgement here. Facts are irrelevant. Only perceptions matter. :blink:
Ok, bammer. "We won us 12 nashnul champeenships! Therefore it's common logic that we are the greatest team in the nation today! What, historical context is 'irrelevant'??? Facts are irrelevant? Only perception matters?"
See how that works?
-
Ok, bammer. "We won us 12 nashnul champeenships! Therefore it's common logic that we are the greatest team in the nation today! What, historical context is 'irrelevant'??? Facts are irrelevant? Only perception matters?"
See how that works?
No, I don't see how that works. You have the perception that Conservatives in the Republican party are bigots, and your perception couldn't be further from the truth. The fact that Conservatives have provided the moral foundation for the Republican party holding ideals of equality higher than those espoused by the Democrats doesn't seem to matter to you. You still haven't provided any facts to support this. I suspect that you live in some Alabama hick-town with a couple of rednecks who call themselves Republican. That doesn't mean that "most" Conservatives are bigoted.
-
No, I don't see how that works.
I didn't think you would.I suspect that you live in some Alabama hick-town with a couple of rednecks who call themselves Republican. That doesn't mean that "most" Conservatives are bigoted.
If you consider Birmingham a hick-town. Riddle me this, Batman, is there a single redneck racist from said hick-towns who will be voting for the Democratic Candidate this year? The Republican party welcomes these votes rather than make a conscious effort to distance themselves from them, and that's my beef.
-
Ok, bammer. "We won us 12 nashnul champeenships! Therefore it's common logic that we are the greatest team in the nation today!
...
...
Sports homerism does no harm.
...
-
I hate to butt into your pissing match with Chad, but I wouldn't make the above-quoted blanket statement. There are plenty of non-degenerate blood transfusion cases of AIDS.
Let me correct myself after reading the CDC facts posted by GarMan by saying the vast majority of AIDS cases are caused by risky and degenerate behavior.
As a sidebar don't think that I'm not sympathetic to folk with this horrible disease but it is mostly preventable by behavioral change.
No, God created it to punish fags...but wait, then I guess he does...
...
I am sure that you were trying to be sarcastic here and not bigoted by again referencing the "funny" quote from Sarah. Really lame my friend.
-
I didn't think you would.If you consider Birmingham a hick-town. Riddle me this, Batman, is there a single redneck racist from said hick-towns who will be voting for the Democratic Candidate this year? The Republican party welcomes these votes rather than make a conscious effort to distance themselves from them, and that's my beef.
I really don't know what you are looking for from the Republican Party on this subject. I think that any political party welcomes any votes. No one can control who votes for them since this nation got rid of the poll tax in the Fifteenth Amendment. Unfortunately many Southern Democrats tried to grandfather this tax into their states to prohibit folk from certain races from voting.
The Republican Party has made it quite clear on platform after platform that racism and discrimination is intolerable.
This is from the GOP mission statement:
African American Mission
From the founding of the Republican Party to today, African Americans have been central to the GOP. The leadership of President George W. Bush provides an opportunity for us to work together and better include everyone of all backgrounds in the Republican Party. Bringing African Americans back to the Party of Lincoln has been a central priority of President Bush, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, and is the mission of the RNC's African American Team Leader Outreach program. Working together with African Americans in communities across the country, we can make the Party of Lincoln stronger and more diverse than ever before.
This is from the latest Party Platform:
Ensuring Equal Opportunities
Out nation is a land of opportunity for all, and our communities must represent the ideal of equality and justice for every citizen. The Republican Party favors aggressive, proactive measures to ensure that no individual is discriminated against on the basis of race, national origin, gender, or other characteristics covered by our civil rights laws. We also favor recruitment and outreach policies that cast the widest possible net so that the best qualified individuals are encouraged to apply for jobs, contracts, and university admissions. We believe in the principle of affirmative access-taking steps to ensure that disadvantaged individuals of all colors and ethnic backgrounds have the opportunity to compete economically and that no child is left behind educationally. We support a reasonable approach to Title IX that seeks to expand opportunities for women. We praise President Bush for his strong record on civil rights enforcement, and for becoming the first President ever to ban racial profiling by the federal government. Finally, because we are opposed to discrimination, we reject quotas, and set-asides based on skin color, ethnicity, or gender, which perpetuate divisions and can lead people to question the accomplishments of successful minorities and women.
Voting Rights
The foundation of our democratic republic is our commitment to conducting free and fair elections. Unfortunately, in November of 2000, too many people believed they were denied the right to vote. Many African Americans, Hispanics, and others fear they may lose the right to vote because of inaccurate or insecure technology or because of a rolling back in the gains made by the passage of civil rights legislation. Our national commitment to a voting process that has integrity was underscored in 2002 when the Congress passed and the President signed the Help America Vote Act. We will continue to do all we can to ensure that every lawful vote counts for all Americans.
Finally, after the unfortunate "macaca" statement by former Senator George Allen of Virginia the Republican Party issued a Guidebook through the National Republican Senatorial Committee to assist candidates in this issue by helping them to be more proactive in guarding against racism and promoting an open effort to reach out to all people. (I don't have a copy of this guidebook and can't find it online but I do know that it exists because it has been referenced in several legitimate political blogs that I read.)
Apart from that and if you don't think that's enough and if you think that strongly about this issue you need to take a proactive role in your local Republican Party. Tell them about this concern and why it drove you away don't just bitch about it and walk away like a poochy-lipped child. That's part of the problem with the Republican Party today! Too many conservatives sit-n-spin bitching but they don't DO anything or they join some dumb-ass third party that won't amount to nothing on election day.
Lastly, as GarMan pointed out above I don't see the Democrats apologizing for the racially motivated actions of that party in their history nor demanding that racists like Senator Byrd (D-WV) and former KKK Grand Wizard leave the party! At least Republicans cull this kind of behavior in short order.
-
I didn't think you would.If you consider Birmingham a hick-town. Riddle me this, Batman, is there a single redneck racist from said hick-towns who will be voting for the Democratic Candidate this year? The Republican party welcomes these votes rather than make a conscious effort to distance themselves from them, and that's my beef.
By the bye, this is what President Bush said at Ronald Reagan's Funeral service in June of 2004 and it was incorporated into the party platform that same year (still in it as far as I know).
Ronald Reagan believed that people were basically good, and had the right to be free. He believed that bigotry and prejudice were the worst things that a person could be guilty of. He believed in the Golden Rule and in the power of prayer. He believed that America was not just a place in the world, but the hope of the world. As Ronald Wilson Reagan goes his way, we are left with a joyful hope he shared.
-
I didn't think you would.
Only because your reasoning is flawed.
If you consider Birmingham a hick-town. Riddle me this, Batman, is there a single redneck racist from said hick-towns who will be voting for the Democratic Candidate this year? The Republican party welcomes these votes rather than make a conscious effort to distance themselves from them, and that's my beef.
Why not? Hillary did win Kentucky. What evidence or facts would you reference as evidence to show how "The Republican party welcomes these votes"? What about African-Americans who hold contempt for whites, Jews and Arabs? What about the more recent European-Americans who don't get along wtih African-Americans? Don't forget about the relations between Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans. For as long as I can remember, they've been at each other's throats. BTW, do you think they're going to vote Republican? Oh, here's a good one. How do you think African-Americans get along with the gay community? What about Muslim-Americans and the gay community? Do you think any of them will vote Republican? What about the friction between feminists and gays? They pretend to get along, but they don't. You are putting all bigotry on those evil Conservatives in the Republican party, and you're ignoring the bigotry that is inherent with the establishment of the hyphenated minority groups in the Democratic party.
-
By the bye, this is what President Bush said at Ronald Reagan's Funeral service in June of 2004 and it was incorporated into the party platform that same year (still in it as far as I know).
But, but, but... That doesn't matter, because that's history. He's only concerned about "today", and he doesn't see the Republican party doing enough to distance themselves from good-ole-boy bigotry. I suppose the Republicans will have to start aggressive advertising along with a door-to-door campaign to get the word out.
The thing that really bothers me about this thread is that AUChizad hasn't provided any facts to support his opinion. His opinion is merely a perception based on nothing more than rumors and speculation. This is beyond silly.
-
But, but, but... That doesn't matter, because that's history. He's only concerned about "today", and he doesn't see the Republican party doing enough to distance themselves from good-ole-boy bigotry. I suppose the Republicans will have to start aggressive advertising along with a door-to-door campaign to get the word out.
...
Not that it's an excuse but there's a lot of good-ole-boy bigotry amongst Democrats too.
...
The thing that really bothers me about this thread is that AUChizad hasn't provided any facts to support his opinion. His opinion is merely a perception based on nothing more than rumors and speculation. This is beyond silly.
"If it feels good, do it." never mind the facts or historical context.
-
I see that "bigotry" held by "most" Conservatives in the Republican party is alive and well... Oh, these are Democrats again.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4889014&page=1
For Some Clinton Supporters, Sexism Is the Only Explanation
Many Women's Hopes of Seeing First Female President Are Tied to Clinton Going the Distance
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
May 20, 2008
As Sen. Hillary Clinton has raced toward the end of what appears to be a losing bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, she has voiced what her most fervent supports have been saying -- her campaign has been dissed and damaged by people "who are nothing but misogynists."
...
There you have it. Here come the excuses. She didn't do anything wrong. It's everyone else's fault.
That's why she needs to win. She's the only one who can save us from ourselves! :rofl:
-
I wish the rest of us had the long range vision that this woman possesses! I guess in 40 years when our intellect has caught caught up to hers we will then know how wrong we were for not supporting her.
-
I wish the rest of us had the long range vision that this woman possesses! I guess in 40 years when our intellect has caught caught up to hers we will then know how wrong we were for not supporting her.
You silly man! You will never achieve her omnipotence and wisdom. She exists on a higher plane… much, much, much, much higher. She’s a woman, and as First Lady, she’s gained the experience necessary to lead this country... while her husband whored around with chubby interns ruining perfectly good cigars and staining a blue dress. She knows better than you what you need. She's enlightened, and if you get in her way, she might just Fort Marcy Park your ass!
-
You silly man! You will never achieve her omnipotence and wisdom. She exists on a higher plane… much, much, much, much higher. She’s a woman, and as First Lady, she’s gained the experience necessary to lead this country... while her husband whored around with chubby interns ruining perfectly good cigars and staining a blue dress. She knows better than you what you need. She's enlightened, and if you get in her way, she might just Fort Marcy Park your ass!
I feel humbled to draw upon the same human created toxic air as she does. I'm not worthy.
-
I feel humbled to draw upon the same human created toxic air as she does. I'm not worthy.
Damn skaight your not! You misogynist, sexist, bigoted, Republican!
-
Damn skaight your not! You misogynist, sexist, bigoted, Republican!
YOU forgot CONSERVATIVE!!!