Frist: Democrats are against people of faith

[The Dark]

Why would people like me associate themselves with those murderers that go around killing abortion doctors?

You wouldn't. But I'm willing to bet you have no problem throwing people in jail for the "crime" of prostitution. It's just not as severe with the average believer, that's all.

I don't only because it is a crime. If it were legalized and regulated, I would have no problem with it. I would disagree with the law, but not with the enforcement of law, similar to the manner in which MLK pointed out the immorality of law but did not interfere with its implementation.

[Darth Wong]

I don't only because it is a crime. If it were legalized and regulated, I would have no problem with it.

You should already know that you are a very small minority among believers, so the point remains. Gays can't even convince the majority of believers to let them get married, so you know what the chance of legalizing prostitution is.

[The Dark]

For the purpose of discussing religious groups as a political body with an agenda, you don't need to point out the moderate minority because they're silent, invisable and irrelevant. If they actually had some semblance of influence within their religions they might be worth mentioning. As it is they're just a beneign abberation.

I think we're becoming less silent. Although the liberals are still mainly appearing on political talk shows as a counterpoint to conservatives, they are appearing. Meet the Press had Father Robert Drinan (a former Democratic Congressman) and Rev. Jim Wallis as counterpoints to Dr. Land of the SBC and Joe Lieberman, with Reza Aslan (who I haven't read) and Jon Meacham of Newsweek as other members of the discussion. I think it is beginning to reach the point where the moderate and liberal majority are realizing the conservative minority have marginalized religion and buttonholed it into a small field. These people will begin to organize more strongly and will provide a counterpoint to the Religious Right/Moral Majoirty. It will take time; the conservatives have been organizing for 30 years. It will happen, though.

[Loner]

Someone has to resurrect Thomas Jefferson, so he can set all these assholes straight.

[Castor Troy]

Someone has to resurrect Thomas Jefferson, so he can set all these assholes straight.

Definitely. He wasn't perfect, but he was a damn good conservative.

[wolveraptor]

...and watch the Democrats mumble back some half-assed shit in response to this, rather than being outraged. How is it that Republicans are so much more able to motivate their base than Democrats? It showed in the elections, it really showed in Schiavo, and it's showing now.

[Castor Troy]

...and watch the Democrats mumble back some half-assed shit in response to this, rather than being outraged. How is it that Republicans are so much more able to motivate their base than Democrats? It showed in the elections, it really showed in Schiavo, and it's showing now.

My guess is that Democrats are having a divide themselves, between the more liberal Democrats and the labor-union type Democrats, who have different goals in mind (the union people wanting an increase in minimum wage, the liberals wanting gay marriage, for example), whereas Republicans have more unified goals.

[Darth Wong]

...and watch the Democrats mumble back some half-assed shit in response to this, rather than being outraged. How is it that Republicans are so much more able to motivate their base than Democrats? It showed in the elections, it really showed in Schiavo, and it's showing now.

Reasonable people don't run around screaming, painting slanderous accusations on sandwich-boards, and pulling their kids out of school to protest something.

[Firefox]

...and watch the Democrats mumble back some half-assed shit in response to this, rather than being outraged. How is it that Republicans are so much more able to motivate their base than Democrats? It showed in the elections, it really showed in Schiavo, and it's showing now.

Reasonable people don't run around screaming, painting slanderous accusations on sandwich-boards, and pulling their kids out of school to protest something.

And that they use style-over-substance to win support stymies me, since their "style" is the above. I often wonder if the Democrats should attempt the same tactics, since it seems to work for the Republicans.

[Spyder]

Thank you, Senator Frist, for confirming that Bush's agenda is to flood the courts with right-wing Christian conservatives who will be most likely to violate the separation of church and state.

If you're serving a right wing Christian agenda are you an activist judge?

You're a hero and a true patriot.

[Spyder]

...and watch the Democrats mumble back some half-assed shit in response to this, rather than being outraged. How is it that Republicans are so much more able to motivate their base than Democrats? It showed in the elections, it really showed in Schiavo, and it's showing now.

Reasonable people don't run around screaming, painting slanderous accusations on sandwich-boards, and pulling their kids out of school to protest something.

And that they use style-over-substance to win support stymies me, since their "style" is the above. I often wonder if the Democrats should attempt the same tactics, since it seems to work for the Republicans.

The Dems need to go left. They don't think they can but it's what they need to do. If things are going to improve there's going to need to be some serious Yin to the Republican's Yang.

[Gil Hamilton]

Ah yes. I remember the bitching at I got in the other thread from certain members of this board about how the Democrats are just being petulent about blocking some (not all, in fact, Democrats passed most of them without a peep) nominees for the judiciary and that Republicans didn't really care about "values" but wanted constructionalists who'd "just do their job". Yet here we have the fucking Senate Majority Leader himself openly stating that the nominees are all about values and that they want far right conservative judges on the bench because they've got the values to go with it. If the Republicans honestly only wanted constructionalists, then whether the candidates had "faith" or not is irrelevant to their jobs, yet they are making a hell of a big issue over it with these sorts of rallies. Strikes me as kind of funny.

[Rye]

Someone has to resurrect Thomas Jefferson, so he can set all these assholes straight.

Where's Jesus? Oh yeah, he was pretend.

What I don't get about this whole mess is how people in the US don't become utterly disgusted with the republicans. I mean, can you imagine if Michael Howard and the british conservative party whored themselves to the religious reich over here? People would see it for what it was and their public approval would go right down, I have no doubt at all. But in the US, mainstream politicians and members of congress can say stupid-ass shit like "the opposing party are against people of faith" or similar overly broad generalisations, or get personally involved with terri schiavo, or there can be questions in presidential races about whether Gott mit uns or not. It's fucking retarded. The worst part, I suspect, is that US citizens don't even realise that they're supposed to be disgusted and just go along with the rhetoric because it's fun.

[Darth Wong]

Ah yes. I remember the bitching at I got in the other thread from certain members of this board about how the Democrats are just being petulent about blocking some (not all, in fact, Democrats passed most of them without a peep) nominees for the judiciary and that Republicans didn't really care about "values" but wanted constructionalists who'd "just do their job". Yet here we have the fucking Senate Majority Leader himself openly stating that the nominees are all about values and that they want far right conservative judges on the bench because they've got the values to go with it. If the Republicans honestly only wanted constructionalists, then whether the candidates had "faith" or not is irrelevant to their jobs, yet they are making a hell of a big issue over it with these sorts of rallies. Strikes me as kind of funny.

The hardcore partisan behaviour of right-wingers is something they are incapable of seeing in themselves. They only recognize hardcore partisan behaviour when they see it in someone on the left, like Elfdart (who, amusingly enough, they've asked me to ban on at least a half-dozen occasions, without any sign whatsoever that they recognize the irony).

[Gil Hamilton]

I think people see the irony just fine but it may also be more than conceded that the hard-right fundie politics that many in the Republican party is putting out is honest would be worse for them than merely stonewalling on it issue. After all, they are still holding out that the Republican party is just "throwing the fundies some bones" and using them as a powerful voting block and any second now are going to tighten the reins to keep them in check. Then they'll tie 'em down and it's good old fashioned fiscal conservativism and small unintrusive government from then on out with the occasional anti-gay ban and pro-creationism law to keep the constituants in line, yessireebob. They can dig up some gnarly old Big Business ghouls again to run the ship, slap a handsome young figurehead in front, and ALL will be well.

[Patrick Degan]

Someone has to resurrect Thomas Jefferson, so he can set all these assholes straight.

Definitely. He wasn't perfect, but he was a damn good conservative.

And an equally damn good liberal as well.

[Illuminatus Primus]

On Thursday, one wavering Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, told a television interviewer, Chris Matthews, that he would vote against the change.

"By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees," Mr. McCain said.

God he has balls.

[Mitth`raw`nuruodo]

Gil brought up an interesting point. Do you think that the Repbulicans are going to eventually split into two parties? I know that not everyone wants to pander to the fundies; McCain is an example of that. Perhaps eventually we'll see the moderates split into a new group, one that doesn't tie itself so closely to the religious Right.

[Castor Troy]

Gil brought up an interesting point. Do you think that the Repbulicans are going to eventually split into two parties? I know that not everyone wants to pander to the fundies; McCain is an example of that. Perhaps eventually we'll see the moderates split into a new group, one that doesn't tie itself so closely to the religious Right.

Not really. The Conservatives rely on the Religious Right for votes.

You see, the Religious Right has the people and the money, the Conservatives have the political power.

They also have common goals in mind, too.

[The Dark]

On Thursday, one wavering Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, told a television interviewer, Chris Matthews, that he would vote against the change.

"By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees," Mr. McCain said.

God he has balls.

He's basically split with the party now. There's one other Republican who's openly said she'll vote against it also, but since she's a "no-name" Senator, it's not been in the news as much.

[Durandal]

On Thursday, one wavering Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, told a television interviewer, Chris Matthews, that he would vote against the change.

"By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees," Mr. McCain said.

God he has balls.

After the election, George W. Bush had to give them back.

[Morilore]

Not really. The Conservatives rely on the Religious Right for votes.

You see, the Religious Right has the people and the money, the Conservatives have the political power.

They also have common goals in mind, too.

Ah, but what if the Democratic Party collapses? Where would all those votes go?

[Castor Troy]

Not really. The Conservatives rely on the Religious Right for votes.

You see, the Religious Right has the people and the money, the Conservatives have the political power.

They also have common goals in mind, too.

Ah, but what if the Democratic Party collapses? Where would all those votes go?

Well, if the Democratic Party collapses, I see three parties from that.

One is called the "old time" Democrats. They believe in the "butter" of America (as opposed to classic Republicans with "guns", in the "guns and butter analogy"). They want to see a raise in minimum wage, they want to see community centers, more money to public schools, stuff like that. They're mostly labor union members, live in either cities or suburbs and typically work blue colar jobs.

Then, you have the more radical Democrats, the liberals. They want to see Affirmative Action, more power to the workers, and some of them despise Corporate America (don't ask me why -- I think it's silly).

You then have the third group, the immagrants, who just want help from their lowly status. Eventually, as they become successful, they begin to accept more conservative values, both socially and economically.

[SirNitram]

Not really. The Conservatives rely on the Religious Right for votes.

You see, the Religious Right has the people and the money, the Conservatives have the political power.

They also have common goals in mind, too.

Ah, but what if the Democratic Party collapses? Where would all those votes go?

You mean like the Republicans collapsed when the Democrats held power?

Oh, wait. They didn't. This is yet another iteration of stupid bullshit by scaremongers.

[Gil Hamilton]

After the election, George W. Bush had to give them back.

I'm suprised John McCain can walk after the 2004 election bendover he took. After the 2000 Primaries, he had as much reason as any democrat to strongly dislike the Bush Administration, yet they let him be one of their token moderate posterboys. I think he took a huge hit in his integrity, because at a certain point being the "good soldier" just translates to "political bitch".