›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

This is the complete republican movement?

CremlianCremlian
edited April 2009 in Everything Else
kwdOwgD5OsY

I mean one person actually yells burn the books....
«13

Comments

  • Loganator456Loganator456
    "Like all of the evolution crap, and so on."

    *sigh*
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    So what's happening here? We saw it in the run-up to the elections, with the crazies at the McCain rallies and whatnot. Have the people of the right wing become so scared and alienated that they've come to this? Or have the more sensible conservatives abandoned ship, and this is all that's left? Or has it always been this way, and I just never noticed?
  • WalkerWalker
    edited April 2009
    Or has it always been this way, and I just never noticed?
    Maybe it's just a meeting of conservatives of this particular variety. I don't know if it's fair extrapolate from the behavior of a couple dozen nutters having a tea party to the rest of their political group.
    Post edited by Walker on
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    Maybe it's just a meeting of conservatives of this particular variety. I don't know if it's fair extrapolate from the behavior of a couple dozen nutters having a tea party to the rest of their political group.
    That's true, but I'm talking about more than just this. The stuff you hear coming out of the actual republican party -- Michelle Bachmann et al., is ridiculous to a degree that I've never seen before.
  • WalkerWalker
    edited April 2009
    Maybe it's a little bit of all the things you mentioned, plus some "HEY HEY LOOK AT ME OH MY GOD" sensationalism; an attempt to get more publisism for the Republican party. Seeing shit like this makes me wonder about the rest of the party, in the very least.
    Post edited by Walker on
  • ΣπεκωσποκΣπεκωσποκ
    Dunno about me, but when I heard the Republicans planned to, in their words, "teabag" the President, I laughed harder than I had in a long while. The whole demise of the legitimacy of the Reagan conservative movement is rather laughable. Going out with a fizz, in my opinion.
  • IrascibleIrascible
    How can that guy claim to be a libertarian and support the Constitution Party? Anyway it would really suck to be a moderate republican right now

    "Burn the books"? It's sad that some people can be so ignorant
  • Sir_XanderSir_Xander
    edited April 2009
    These people aren't republicans, they're simply bat-shit crazy. I'm a Jeffersonian conservative; I believe that the constitution is the highest law of the land as it is written, and that Obama has major gaps in his policies. I would pay these crazies no more attention then those you would find on the other side of the political spectrum. I believe all of the more moderate/reasonable conservatives have jumped ship, to join other parties.
    ...the legitimacy of the Reagan conservative movement is rather laughable.
    I completely agree the "Reagan" movement has become nothing more then a joke. If these people were truly republicans they wouldn't be screaming conspiracies and calling for book burnings.
    Post edited by Sir_Xander on
  • JasonJason
    If these people were truly republicans they wouldn't be screaming conspiracies and calling for book burnings.
    What, in your opinion, is a "true" republican?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited April 2009
    I'm a Jeffersonian conservative . . .
    So is Pat Robertson.
    If these people were truly republicans they wouldn't be screaming conspiracies and calling for book burnings.
    What, in your opinion, is a "true" republican?
    A Jeffersonian Conservative describes what a true conservative believes.
    I believe that the constitution is the highest law of the land as it is written, and that Obama has major gaps in his policies.
    Is the Constitution not a living document? Please describe what you consider to be "major gaps" in Obama's policies.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AndrewAndrew
    Please describe what you consider to be "major gaps" in Obama's policies.
    Violation of the fourth amendment.
    image
  • AprecheApreche
    Violationof thefourthamendment.
    Epic lols!
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Please describe what you consider to be "major gaps" in Obama's policies.
    Violationof thefourthamendment.
    I agree that this is not a good thing, but how is it a "gap"?
  • AndrewAndrew
    I agree that this is not a good thing, but how is it a "gap"?
    Wait, I'm sorry. How is explicitly violating the rights of American citizens NOT a gap? If he feels that the American public are willing to give up privacy for some security, he should try to pass a new amendment instead of just ignoring the Bill of Rights.
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    edited April 2009
    I'm sorry, but what value lies in defining your own political stances by those of people that lived 250 years ago?
    While people like Thomas Jefferson were certainly great men of their time, the world has progressed since then and certainly clinging to those stances without reevaluating them for the modern day. Calling oneself "jeffersonian" or similar things conveys to me that you are accepting 200 year old teachings on face value without considering their implications for modern day and that can only lead to disaster.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited April 2009
    I agree that this is not a good thing, but how is it a "gap"?
    Wait, I'm sorry. How is explicitly violating the rights of American citizens NOT a gap? If he feels that the American public are willing to give up privacy for some security, he should try to pass a new amendment instead of just ignoring the Bill of Rights.
    This is what I think of when I hear the word "gap". I take the sentence "Obama has major gaps in his policies" to mean that there are major areas that are not addressed at all in Obama's policies.

    Your objection is to something that is actually being addressed. That objection may be well founded, because the action taken might be addressing the issue wrongly. I might even agree with your objection. However, I don't think that your objection qualifies as a "gap" since there has actually been action undertaken. I don't think "Obama has continued bad Bush policies" is equivalent to "Obama has major gaps in his policies".
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AndrewAndrew
    Thisis what I think of when I hear the word "gap". I take the sentence "Obama has major gaps in his policies" to mean that there are major areas that are not addressed at all in Obama's policies.

    Your objection is to something that is actually being done. That objection may be well founded. I might even agree with your objection. However, I don't think that your objection qualifies as a "gap".
    Um ok. Don't really care about how you classify policy issues. It's not that big a deal.
    I'm sorry, but what value lies in defining your own political stances by those of people that lived 250 years ago?
    While people like Thomas Jefferson were certainly great men of their time, the world has progressed since then and certainly clinging to those stances without reevaluating them for the modern day. Calling oneself "jeffersonian" or similar things conveys to me that you are accepting 200 year old teachings on face value without considering their implications for modern day and that can only lead to disaster.
    Here, listen to this. Start at 19:00 to get an understanding.
  • JasonJason
    I think we were looking at definition 5: A conspicuous difference or imbalance; a disparity. The difference between Obama rhetoric and Obama reality.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    I think we were looking at definition 5: A conspicuous difference or imbalance; a disparity. The difference between Obama rhetoric and Obama reality.
    So the sentence "Obama has major gaps in his policies" really means "I'm very disappointed in the difference between Obama rhetoric and Obama reality"? I'm sorry, but I believe that is giving the writer too much credit.
  • JasonJason
    So the sentence "Obama has major gaps in his policies" really means "I'm very disappointed in the difference between Obama rhetoric and Obama reality"? I'm sorry, but I believe that is giving the writer too much credit.
    Think what you need to think. Arguing semantics isn't going to erase the fact that Obama has reneged on key policy points from his campaign. And it hasn't helped him conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given him clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fortress.
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    Here, listen tothis. Start at 19:00 to get an understanding.
    I don't think that addressed what I was asking. Basically what he does is taking single tenants and reevaluates it for current day. That's all fine and dandy. What I have a problem with is blanket statements in defining your own political position by a person who lived 200 years ago. "Jeffersonian" doesn't say to me "I agree with this, this and this, and I disagree with this what Jefferson said" but "I think Thomas Jefferson was a great man and I believe everyone of his political positions is good without even looking at them". Conversely for various other political figures.
  • AndrewAndrew
    I don't think he said he agreed with every single position word for word. Jeffersonian means in the style of Jefferson, not exactly like him.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited April 2009
    So the sentence "Obama has major gaps in his policies" really means "I'm very disappointed in the difference between Obama rhetoric and Obama reality"? I'm sorry, but I believe that is giving the writer too much credit.
    Think what you need to think. Arguing semantics isn't going to erase the fact that Obama has reneged on key policy points from his campaign.
    You're not understanding at all. The writer said "Obama has major gaps in his policies". I wanted to know what he believed the gaps were - what area has Obama not addressed that the writer thinks should be addressed. That's a fair question and that's why I asked the question.

    If he had written "I'm very disappointed in the difference between Obama rhetoric and Obama reality", then I wouldn't have asked any question since I would have been fairly certain of what he was talking about: "Obama has been president now for 83 days and he hasn't totally reversed every single bad policy from the 2,922 days of the Bush Administration. What a disappointment!"
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • ElJoe0ElJoe0
    edited April 2009
    As a jolly old brit and also a liberal, but also as a questioning individual, I ask if the constitution has lost it's relevance in the last 221 years? The social, economic and technological changes that have taken place change on a base level what society and nations are. Is it wise to base a nation on the realities of a revolutionary period in a fledgling nation?

    Oh man, the hate I am going to get *gulp*
    Post edited by ElJoe0 on
  • AndrewAndrew
    The social, economic and technological changes that have taken place change on a base level what society and nations are. Is it wise to base a nation on the realities of a revolutionary period in a fledgling nation?
    The Constitution is not the same document it was at the founding of the country. There have been several changes made to it over the years and they still can be made. It's just really really hard to do it.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited April 2009
    If he had written "I'm very disappointed in the difference between Obama rhetoric and Obama reality", then I wouldn't have asked any question since I would have been fairly certain of what he was talking about: "Obama has been president now for 83 days and he hasn't totally reversed every single bad policy from the 2,922 days of the Bush Administration. What a disappointment!"
    Leaving the semantic argument aside to stick to the topic at hand, there is a difference between failing to reverse a policy by omission and adopting a policy. By proactively invoking the Bush doctrine as it pertains to wiretaps, you've adopted that very policy.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • DiagorasDiagoras
    edited April 2009
    As a jolly old brit and also a liberal, but also as a questioning individual, I ask if the constitution has lost it's relevance in the last 221 years? The social, economic and technological changes that have taken place change on a base level what society and nations are. Is it wise to base a nation on the realities of a revolutionary period in a fledgling nation?

    Oh man, the hate I am going to get *gulp*
    (I failed to see Andrew's explanation, so I deleted mine.)

    For a comparison, let's look at the Texas Constitution. Oh, wait. I forgot one important thing. The amendments alone take 114 pages. The reason: Texas has a strict constitution. It was designed to weaken the state government after the carpetbaggers fixed it. The Radical Republicans of the Reconstruction made a great constitution. The "Dixiecrats" (conservative Southern Democrats) hated the Radical Republicans, so after Reconstruction, they threw out the "Yankee" constitution. As a result, in order for normal business to get done, you have to amend the Texas Constitution constantly. This results in thoroughly unpleasant reading, and makes comprehension difficult for the laymen.

    We were supposed to make a new constitution in the 70's, but the attempt failed.
    Post edited by Diagoras on
  • BlattusBlattus
    If you're really of the opinion that the Constitution is unimportant in terms of applicability, it at least serves to establish an idealistic foundation of what the United States is and what it represents. You also cannot discount the fact that it was made to be modified, regardless of how difficult the process is, and because of that it has an incredible degree of foresight. Then there's the fact that the Constitution is actually relevant because it defines the framework of a government (checks and balances, three branches, etc).
  • CremlianCremlian
    Reminds me of when I had an argument with my libertarian Aunt over whether the Constitution was a living document and if the constitution was so perfect why did it have to be amended :-p. She responded by saying she believed women should never been given the right to vote, because the country went down hill soon after. Not sure how you respond to a person who wants to disenfranchise herself.
  • JayJay
    Reminds me of when I had an argument with my libertarian Aunt over whether the Constitution was a living document and if the constitution was so perfect why did it have to be amended :-p. She responded by saying she believed women should never been given the right to vote, because the country went down hill soon after. Not sure how you respond to a person who wants to disenfranchise herself.
    Wait...what? A Libertarian that wants to remove the right to vote from women?
Sign In or Register to comment.