quote:Reality called, something about how you missed the part of those exchanges of where I'm usually goaded into it by admitted trolls.
*sigh*
What is actually happening is that you are behaving callously towards people who challenge your facts in the first place in a route that usually leads towards you even losing a moral middle-ground. People on Sake are patiently calling you out on your shenanigans too, buddy. I've watched.
the VAST MAJORITY of the posters here really sincerely want you to change your ways for the better, myself included, but grow more and more tired of the unwarranted dismissal and unwarranted disdain that reliably for years comes when people take you up on your interpretation of one of several sacred cows. I don't like it enough that I will bring up that Quagmire Of A Discussion rather than just letting you continue your old habits out of attrition and the frustrated silence of others. But you reliably just dismiss it and find a way to tell yourself (and others) that it's not really your fault, it's someone else's fault for goading you into it or being an 'admitted troll' (95% of the time at least the people you accuse of trolling are not).
And one way or another it's why you're always going to hate me, but there you go.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
When several threads now have been consistently derailed by your one man crusade to browbeat me into "changing my ways" it satisfies a reasonable standard of "he who stares into the abyss sees the abyss stare back at you" and you've blinked.
When you decide to treat me with some more respect you'll see that surprise surprise, I don't feel like I'm being pushed into a corner.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Sakeriver is usually along the lines how until I lose control I generally possess the moral highground
:giggle:
You know, that forum is accessible to all of us right? This is... well it's disingenuous.
You can ask them yourself, if you like, but my suspicion is that the people at Sake would say that the primary reason why they might enjoy interacting with you is because your own behavior there allows them to. You should be proud- there are people out there who like you and care about you, and it is because of the way you act- because you respect those people and treat them with respect.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't know, it's in the ballpark, which seems to more accurately be 'people would agree with you more if you didn't make it so easy to disagree by flipping out'. Another common theme would be that the prodding would probably drop sharply if the amusing hysterical reaction weren't so predictable. But there IS also the notion (fair one, at that) that people take less overt shots at him precisely to draw that response.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, I don't know, it's in the ballpark, which seems to more accurately be 'people would agree with you more if you didn't make it so easy to disagree by flipping out'. Another common theme would be that the prodding would probably drop sharply if the amusing hysterical reaction weren't so predictable. But there IS also the notion (fair one, at that) that people take less overt shots at him precisely to draw that response.
Slow and steady steps, the march of 10,000 li begins with a single step, and then another one after that. The Long March wasn't done in a day.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Elephant in the room that Dan doesn't want to mention is probably BB who does make a habit of flipping out and swearing at opponents...
Bwuh!?
And then I realized Mucus wasn't talking about me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Slow and steady steps, the march of 10,000 li begins with a single step, and then another one after that. The Long March wasn't done in a day.
This would be more compelling if there wasn't a clearly marked Short Jog path immediately to the left.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because I'm remembering the most well known case with Ron lately, that of the Birther lying. He claimed it had been proven Obama was born in Kenya based on what he claimed was said by Obama's grandmother. When this was looked at in detail here on Hatrack, this was proven as it has been elsewhere to be flat-out wrong.
Not only did he never admit he was wrong, he stuck to the claim in the face of contrary factual evidence and also outright stated what lazy, stupid Americans people were who didn't agree.
Just wanted to jump in and back you up here. If anything, your description is too generous to Ron. Essentially, he said that when he watched a video he posted, he saw something that didn't actually appear in the video. When everyone else who was party to the conversation pointed out to him that he was wrong about what was on the screen, he held his ground and began tossing around accusations.
I wouldn't even really call it "lying." It's not lying if you point at a blue ball and stubbornly declare that it's red. It was more like a tantrum where a child keeps saying "No!" to something he knows is true.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Besides, it occurs to me that even if I did name names, it wouldn't really prove anything. The best I could probably hope to wring from you would be an admission of not-quite-equivalence (i.e. "yeah that person is stubborn and wrong but not at the level of Ron"). Because I'm pretty sure the depth to which we consider such intransigence and imperviousness to argument a serious failing is directly proportional to how off-base we consider the wrong person in question to be.
Otherwise I'm pretty sure you'd have already thought of some of the topics I'm refraining from mentioning.
What brought it on was the suggestion that not only is there equivalence, but that Ron isn't the worst and is in fact better than unnamed 'leftists' on unnamed issues. It made me pretty pissy, in fact, given how Ron has actually behaved.
This might simply be because, as you said, you're not aware of the things I'm talking about. It certainly appears to be the case, since you refer repeatedly to 'bad ideas' and 'imperviousness'. That's not the problem.
You say that his being impervious to argument isn't the issue, but then just below here you describe the issue as...
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not talking about being unwilling to admit one is wrong on a question of politics or opinion-I'm talking about making factual statements (his grandmother says he was born in Kenya, Democrats will never support spending cuts, records from Obama's college days aren't available and that's unusual) and then even when proven-and I don't use that word often around here-proven wrong, insists he is right and then insults the honesty, patriotism, and fundamental decency of the people who gave him the lie.
i.e. He makes a statement, someone provides a successful refutation (an argument!) and he refuses to see it. That seems like a textbook example of someone who is "impervious to argument" as I put it. But it's an uncommon turn of phrase so maybe I was misunderstood.
I still stand by my position that other people here have exhibited similar (or worse, to my eyes) examples of willful disregard for basic facts that contradict their worldview. And I'm still not really willing to commit to naming names, so I recognize that this position is meaningless for you.
Sorry! I'm not trying to be annoying, I just can't think of any way to do it that I'd be comfortable with.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Those are all things he's done, in some cases just in the past week. Perhaps you aren't aware of them. If that's the case, maybe say that instead of saying that not only is Ron not that bad, but there are leftists around here that are worse. It's not a question of thinking his ideas are bad, though I do. I think plenty of ideas are bad, and don't make a habit (nor do others around here) of calling their proponents liars.
To be clear, you put some words in my mouth here: I didn't say Ron was "not that bad." I only said that others were worse, and that I disagreed with the idea that we ought to censure him via moderator. Important distinctions, those are. At least in my view.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: If Ron is representative of even a tiny fraction of people in this country, I'm honestly scared shitless about our immediate future.
quote:i.e. He makes a statement, someone provides a successful refutation (an argument!) and he refuses to see it. That seems like a textbook example of someone who is "impervious to argument" as I put it.
I'm not sure you've got the right understanding of what happened in the discussion. It made quite an impression on me, because I've never seen anything like it. Here's what happened:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Obama's grandmother isn't on screen while they're playing the clip, so it's not even clear that she's actually the one speaking. I tried looking this up and couldn't find any printed record of any conversation where Sarah Obama is reported to have said anything about Barack being born in Kenya, besides the discredited phone conversation.
This leads me to believe that the video is very possibly fabricated.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, I did back up what I said by providing a link to a video you could watch and hear for yourself when Obama's grandmother said "Barack nate dhalani."
No, you can't. You can hear a voice saying it. There's no actual point at which you can 'watch and hear' her saying that for yourself. As you've had pointed out to you already.
I would even bet you don't actually have a video where you can watch her saying that.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your "point" is silly, Sam. That is the primary reason I seldom bother to answer you. Almost everything you say is unutterably silly. And you are also wrong (as usual, too). There is a point about 2/3 through the video where you can see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for the hissy fit some of you threw over Obama's grandmother saying he was born in her village, I did provide you with a link to a video of her saying that.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Just to be clear, Ron, your contention at that time was that in this video you see Sarah Obama on the screen speaking at the same time you hear the sound clip "Barack nate dhalani."
Do you stand by that? Can you point out how many minutes and seconds into the video you see that happen?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Destineer: Yes. Did you not view the video for yourself?
So. What we see isn't Ron being impervious to argument. He's being impervious to the evidence of his own eyes. I just couldn't believe what I was reading.
posted
Destineer has the right of it. Being impervious to argument is one thing. Being impervious to *fact*-and I mean literal fact, not just 'really obvious compelling argument'-is quite another. It isn't an argument to say 'those words don't appear in that video', it's a statement that is simply either true or false.
It's not just an argument to say 'you cannot find such and such from Obama's college days online', it's a statement that is either true or false-it's a question of fact. If it turns out that it WAS online, then the person was just flat-out wrong. If they persist in claiming they were right, then they're lying.
Now, again, perhaps you didn't know about these things. Plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't (though less for why they would then claim some handle on what sort of poster the guy is). But Destineer has provided a pretty thorough example now, so I'll ask again: do you *still* claim the issue is that Ron is 'impervious to argument'? Because it's simply not-the issue is repetitive lying on questions of fact, and the reactions when he is called on it.
That is what made me so irritable from the start of this segue. Your huge understatement (hopefully due to lack of information) followed by 'there are leftists who are worse' (you know, secret leftists on unnamed issues). The larger equivalence argument on a micro scale.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: When several threads now have been consistently derailed by your one man crusade to browbeat me into "changing my ways" it satisfies a reasonable standard of "he who stares into the abyss sees the abyss stare back at you" and you've blinked.
When you decide to treat me with some more respect you'll see that surprise surprise, I don't feel like I'm being pushed into a corner.
This doesn't make sense, are you the abyss?
And why don't you hold yourself to the same standard?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Someone get the thread where Ron was arguing with his own source about Yellowcake in Iraq.
That one was particularly surreal. He wanted to say that the invasion of Iraq was justified by us finding uranium in a facility which the UN actually controlled since the early 90s... Meaning it hadn't been in Sadaam's control, and we knew that.
Sort of like us invading Germany because of the military operations being conducted on Rammstein base...Or maybe trying to retake okinawa.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not exactly the right thread, but I couldn't find a better one. At CPAC there was a panel called "Trump The Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A Racist When You Know Youre Not One?"
Well, to put it lightly, it didn't exactly work.
My favorite part was a young white man standing up and talking about how he felt that young white men from the South were being disenfranchised systematically, and that loving Southern culture was "anathema". He then goes on to disagree with the panelist's suggestion of "Fredrick Douglas Republican" as a counter to being called racist, and says, "Why not a Booker T Washington Republican?"
The panelist responds, and then, this happens. O.o
posted
I love it when Republicans, lately, say they don't have an issues problem, they have a messaging problem. Then you have Romney saying that they lost because they never got the message out to minorities.
Yet every time they try to get the message out that they're not really racist and they actually care about minorities, it always blows up in their faces, and they never seem to understand what bothers people about it. It only proves that it's not about bad messaging, they really just don't get why people are even upset with them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it boils down to a lot of conservatives come at it the wrong way.
Eh, I think that's a part of it-because man, do they ever-but I don't think it quite boils down to it. Who can really say, but I think much of this is what is likely to be exhibited a couple of generations past legal, overt systematic racism. Not just legal but legally required in some cases.
You can hardly be a white southerner and not feel at least a whiff of embarrassment over what happened over centuries, because so often the message is *also* 'kids, ours is a proud and honorable heritage, freedom, American Revolution, Bill of Rights, etc.' So despite what many would and do claim, we can't just disavow the bad stuff and say 'that was never me, I never did any of it' because deep down we all remember many times in school, in movies, in books, at family reunions, when we're told of all of the things we should be proud of...before we were born.
Except there's a lot of truth, too, in the 'that was never me' defense. And thinking about embarrassing stuff is awkward-then it's easy to pivot to 'it's not a problem anymore, why are we talking about this?'
I suspect that's true of many Americans in general and conservatives in particular...but then you've got the 'disenfranchised white people' jackasses, and all of the people who didn't find some way of saying, "Excuse me, but that is deeply stupid."
Anyway. Hey, just keep on going for that increasing share of a shrinking market, conservatives. Even a concerted effort at nationwide gerrymandering won't protect you forever.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There's also the whole thing where the Southern Strategy coupled with the GOP losing control of the primary process has resulted in a situation where even if the GOP wanted to transform in a way similar to the 1980's Democrats they can't because anyone who does will get primaried.
IP: Logged |
posted
sarah palin, now reduced to a sort of a semi-comedy act but still, much to my complete delight, part of the 2013 cpac, has gotten in a barb-trading feud with karl rove
my sinister mocking laugh cup runneth over
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
i just want to make sure everyone's on the same page here
quote:The session, entitled Trump The Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A Racist When You Know Youre Not One? was led by K. Carl Smith, a black conservative who mostly urged attendees to deflect racism charges by calling themselves Frederick Douglass Republicans.
Disruptions began when he started accusing Democrats of still being the party of the Confederacy a common talking point on the right.
I dont care how much the KKK improved, he said. Im not going to join the KKK. The Democratic Party founded the KKK.
Lines like that drew shouts of praise from some attendees and murmurs of disapproval from one non-conservative black attendee, Kim Brown, a radio host and producer with Voice of Russia, a broadcasting service of the Russian government.
But then questions and answers began. And things went off the rails.
Scott Terry of North Carolina, accompanied by a Confederate-flag-clad attendee, Matthew Heimbach, rose to say he took offense to the events take on slavery. (Heimbach founded the White Students Union at Towson University and is described as a white nationalist by the Southern Poverty Law Center.)
It seems to be that youre reaching out to voters at the expense of young white Southern males, Terry said, adding he came to love my people and culture who were being systematically disenfranchised.
Smith responded that Douglass forgave his slavemaster.
For giving him shelter? And food? Terry said.
At this point the event devolved into a mess of shouting. Organizers calmed things down by asking everyone to take the debate outside after the presentation.
Brown, who took offense at the suggestion modern Democrats were descendants of the KKK, tried to ask a question later once things finally calmed down. She was booed and screamed at by audience members.
Let someone else speak! one attendee in Revolutionary War garb shouted.
Youre not welcome! a white-haired older woman yelled.
Eventually she asked a question. It was about whether Republicans should call out racist ads.
Attendees interviewed by TPM afterwards expressed outrage at the way the event turned out. Not at Terry and Heimbach they were mad at Brown.
Chad Chapman, 21, one of the few black attendees, said overall he enjoyed the event except there were lots of interruptions, mainly because of the woman.
I asked whether he was concerned about the question from Terry and Heimbach.
No they were just telling the truth, he said. You mean you agree blacks are systematically disenfranchising whites, I asked?
I listen to anybodys point of view, it doesnt really matter, he said.
A media scrum formed around Terry immediately after the close of the event. A woman wearing a Tea Party Patriots CPAC credential who had shouted down Brown earlier urged him not to give his name to the press.
She wouldnt give her name either, but I asked her what she thought.
Look, you know theres no doubt the white males are getting really beat up right now, its unfair, she said. I agree with that. My husbands one of them. But I dont think theres a clear understanding about what really is going on. He needs to read Frederick Douglass and I think that question should be asked to everyone in this room who is debating.
posted
As long as the Republican party is courting the religious vote, they're going to be racist. It's a sad, well-established fact that religious people, especially conservative religious people, are significantly more racist and prejudiced than the general population.
---
edit: I stated that poorly. What I meant to have said is that religious people tend to be significantly more racist and prejudiced than the general population.
posted
Pretty much every study of religious and prejudice that I'm aware of, back from the very start of the study of prejudice, displays this correlation between religiosity and prejudice/racism. Pick your (reputable) source and it's almost definitely going to show this. Here's a recent survey of a large chunk of these studies (well, it's actually an article describing it, but the abstract is available from there).
This is not a case of me thinking so. The data here is well-established and pretty unequivocal.
edit: I've discussed this at some length at least twice on Hatrack. You could also look those up for a more detailed examination of why I think so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd imagine any organization that promotes close-knit, us vs the world thinking would have higher rates of xenophobia.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a well established fact that people on Hatrack are significantly more prejudiced against religious and conservatives than the general population.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Even I think that's false.
Anyways I think its more to do with if your older and white, hence your more likely to be either religious and or racist.
Young republicans who support racist policies are either racist or exceedingly dumb and stupid. I remember talking to one online, about 18 years old who felt that the only reason why blacks voted democrat was because of welfare bribery.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Pretty much every study of religious and prejudice that I'm aware of, back from the very start of the study of prejudice, displays this correlation between religiosity and prejudice/racism. Pick your (reputable) source and it's almost definitely going to show this. Here's a recent survey of a large chunk of these studies (well, it's actually an article describing it, but the abstract is available from there).
From your article,
quote:So perhaps its no surprise that the strongly religious people in our research, who were mostly white Christians, discriminated against others who were different from them blacks and minorities.
Um, yeah. No prizes for recognizing the problems with having a sample of where your religious people are predominantly white American Christians from which you draw conclusions about religion in general.
If you are interested, there is an explosive paper that discusses how problematic using the US to extrapolate data on just about anything is. I think they compare it to using penguins as a model for all bird like behavior.
quote:Wood speculated that racist tendencies would not be limited to one religion: All religions offer a moral group identity, and so across world religions including Buddhism, Hinduism, Muslim, Judaism and Christianity the religious ingroup is valued over outgroups.
Her speculations are as useful as any other, that is not at all.
Seems like a classic case of correlation != causation. China and Japan both rank very low in religiosity, but from what I have experienced (which is admittedly weak evidence) they both have serious issues with racism.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um, yeah. No prizes for recognizing the problems with having a sample of where your religious people are predominantly white American Christians from which you draw conclusions about religion in general.
Except we're talking about who the Republicans are courting so it seems like a US-exclusive sample of people that predominate the Republican base is a pretty good place to start.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um, yeah. No prizes for recognizing the problems with having a sample of where your religious people are predominantly white American Christians from which you draw conclusions about religion in general.
Except we're talking about who the Republicans are courting so it seems like a US-exclusive sample of people that predominate the Republican base is a pretty good place to start.
I'm not trying to argue against at present White Christians in the US tend to be racist. But the idea that religiosity means increased racism because the White Christians in the US tend to swing that way is ludicrous.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not trying to argue against at present White Christians in the US tend to be racist. But the idea that religiosity means increased racism because the White Christians in the US tend to swing that way is ludicrous.
It's not ludicrous if it supports your world view. Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I'm having problems understanding your point. We're talking about the American Republican party. I said that they are going to remain racist for as long as they continue to court religious voters and then showed that religious in America have significant problems with racism and have for as long as we've been studying it.
From what I gather, you are faulting this because I only provided data on America (incidentally, there is plenty of evidence from Europe which also agrees with this). I'm having problems seeing that as a logical objection, unless you think I'm failing to consider a point where the American Republican party is trying to court votes from people outside of America.
Looking at it, I think maybe you're reading a broader statement that I intended. I'm talking about in the U.S., religious people (and this is pretty consistent across race) have consistently shown to tend to be more racist than non-religious people. I thought the "in the U.S." was implied, but it looks like maybe you're were reading it as a more global proclamation.
--- edit: You may also want to consider I gave you one reference that was a summary of a survey article. I don't believe that it makes sense to assume from this that 1) this is the only thing known about the link between religion and prejudice and 2) that is the only thing I know about religion and prejudice, especially as I've already discussed this at length here and literally told you that there are a lot more studies out there on this.
quote:I'm having problems understanding your point. We're talking about the American Republican party. I said that they are going to remain racist for as long as they continue to court religious voters and then showed that religious in America have significant problems with racism and have for as long as we've been studying it.
I understand the point you were trying to make better. I initially read it as,
1: Republicans are courting the religious vote, and have for a long time.
2: Because religious people also trend racist, they (the Republican Party) are going to inevitably have a racism problem.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All else aside, I'm really, really curious to see whether or not the GOP, particularly the conservative factions of that party, will continue to assert as much control over the larger party or whether they'll be pushed aside before they bring the whole thing down with them.
On a more grim note, I also wonder a lot how much the answer to that question depends literally on how long a few thousand people or so live. The conservative wing of the GOP is older, whiter, and more male than the US as a whole by a substantial margin, and while that larger trend will be a slow, predictable process of changing I wonder what happens as people in leadership positions of that group begin to grow too old to maintain an active political role? Does the pressure of demographics then, without them, hasten the larger change or what?
As much as I'm deeply (as in, extremely) unhappy with the way this small minority exerts as much control over the entire nation as it does-and rails against perceived minority special interests while doing so-it's still an interesting trend.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
On a more grim note, I also wonder a lot how much the answer to that question depends literally on how long a few thousand people or so live. The conservative wing of the GOP is older, whiter, and more male than the US as a whole by a substantial margin, and while that larger trend will be a slow, predictable process of changing I wonder what happens as people in leadership positions of that group begin to grow too old to maintain an active political role? Does the pressure of demographics then, without them, hasten the larger change or what?
You shouldn't think of it in a sense of say, some leaves growing old and falling off the tree. More like an artery narrowing over time.
Most organizations live long enough to preside over their own obscurity. Just look at the Catholic church. Once a political powerhouse, it is now little more than a tax-shelter (politically speaking- I make no statement about the church's stated aims).
There will always (in the foreseeable future) be *enough* old rich white men to replace the numbers of old rich white men who currently run the Republican party. There will even be more of them. But the point is, they will be crowded out by others, and more of the whole population will fall away from their movement when it becomes clear that they can't be as influential as they were.
Just think- there *are* actually more republicans now than there were a hundred years ago. But only because there is a bigger population. Demographics is not about people disappearing, it's about the base growing wide, and making the majority less major (not smaller).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
My friend keeps trying to make the point that the only thing the GOP needs to do to win other the youth vote is drop social conservatism and be pro-internet freedom.
I point out that his is impossible without ending having anyone who attempts to drop social conservatism from being primaried by the social conservative crowd and that the problems are too systemic to be solve by changing platform planks (that can't be realistically changed anyways) and that a realignment would date a couple of decades.
Apparently because I base this on what's happening now (Christie not being invited to CPAC, self reflection determining the problem is "messaging" not actual policies, etc), that the Arab Spring would not have happened based on "what was happening then"... Oi...
IP: Logged |
posted
I listened to a guy call into a radio show who said, "We've given the Demon-crats a chance to work with us. All they had to do is agree with us and it would have been perfectly bipartisan."
Same thing--suggesting that all the Republicans have to do to win is stop being Republican is not helping anyone.
However, I think they need a new strategy. I think they need to rebrand the RINO name. The Tea Party folks started using RINO as "Republican in Name Only" to classify Moderates as not conservative enough to be a True Republican.
I believe the Republicans need to call out the real RINOs.
If you are a Libertarian, you are a Libertarian not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you are a racist, and hope to find other racists to back your failed philosophy you are not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you dream of a Christian Theocracy before the return of Christ, where only your version of a True Christians matter, and only your ideals of True Christian Thoughts define all law, you are a Theocrat, not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you want a government of the Wealthy, for the Wealthy and limited to protecting the privileges, perks, and status of only the wealthy--you are an Oligarch. You are not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you are greedy, and want to make money at all costs, not caring about the damage done to others, but only for the profit and power you can grab, you are a crook, not a Republican. You are a RINO.
This does not mean that to be a Republican you must surrender your faith, your property, your freedoms, or your success. Republicans accept and promote Christian morality, Libertarian philosophy, Capitalist success, and the Patriotic love of country and our history.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Well I do believe the solution is for the Republicans to collapse so the adverture window can shift American politics back to the left instead of this center-right neoliberal Washington COnsensus hellhole it currently is.
Once democrats no longer have to shift rightwards to build bipartisan support they can listen to the progressive caucus again.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: If you want a government of the Wealthy, for the Wealthy and limited to protecting the privileges, perks, and status of only the wealthy--you are an Oligarch. You are not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you are greedy, and want to make money at all costs, not caring about the damage done to others, but only for the profit and power you can grab, you are a crook, not a Republican. You are a RINO.
????????
ROFL
No, dude, there really are only two types of REAL Republicans. The first type is the already-rich type. That's the first group in my quote of your post. The second group is the hoping-to-get-rich Republicans. Those are the second group in the quote.
Everybody else who calls themselves a Republican just THINKS the party is on their side. In reality, the GOP is about getting rich and staying rich. That's all, as far as I can tell, anyway.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
