WTF is she talking about?

Rob Graham

Have fun becoming just another third rate party, unable to command a majority. Perhaps a new centrist party will rise to give the Democrats some competition, but you noble "social conservatives" (code for Christian Right Wing) will never get another majority, now that you willingly drive away the center and center right.

Stan Shannon

Rob Graham wrote:

Have fun becoming just another third rate party, unable to command a majority.

Thanks. I will happily watch the rest of you thrashing around trying to achieve a workable humanist civilization. It will never happen.

Rob Graham wrote:

Perhaps a new centrist party will rise to give the Democrats some competition,

Unlikely. Any such effort will merely be characterized as the 'far right' all over again. The truth is that there is not, and has never been a 'far right' in this country. That is entirely a fabrication of leftist propaganda. The notion that being anti-abortion (ie the notion of protection human life) or protecting the notion that marriage should remain between a man and a woman is 'far right' or 'christian right' is evidence enough of how preposterous such claims are. Following your adive, conservatism would perpetually be redefining itself leftward in an impossible battle to avoid being called 'far right'. That is precisely why the term 'far right' was invented by Marxists in the first place. Conservatism will never be accepted until it has endorsed and embraced every last aspect of collectivism demanded by the most radical leftist in our society. Otherwise innocuous issues such as abortion and gay rights are as good of a position to defend as any other.

Rob Graham wrote:

but you noble "social conservatives" (code for Christian Right Wing)

No its a code word for 'American civilization'. The way our society maintained itself throughout the vast majority of its history. Christianity was a very important part of that, and properly so. Without Christiantiy, especially protestant christianity, there would have been no America. Thats a simple fact.

Rob Graham wrote:

will never get another majority, now that you willingly drive away the center and center right.

It most certainly will. If nothing else, simply surviving the carnage of liberalism will provide that majority.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

No its a code word for 'American civilization'.

It is amazing how wrong you get on this issue. You are reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-read, and reasonably up on current affairs. Yet something short-circuits in your brain when it comes to certain phrases like "American Values" that forces you to try to filter out any evidence that there are more things on heaven and earth than your philosophy dreams of. What is amazing is that it is pretty clear that you aren't actually religious, let alone a devout Christian. Some of your insights into the problems of the U.S. and the historical causes of those problems is spot on. Yet the only solution you can come up with resembles nothing more than Bin Laden's plan for the U.S. - destroy the urban centers and impose a theocracy on what is left. Stan, it was the social conservatives elected on the coat-tails of Bush who contributed greatly to the climate of fiscal irresponsibility, Wilsonian interference in the affairs of foreign countries, and total unwillingness to listen to the concerns of their constituents that cost the Republican party their place in the mainstream of American thought. It is unfortunate that they so ignored centrist America as to provide an opportunity for someone who appears to be as far left as Obama is showing himself to be, to masquerade as a centrist long enough to gain the overwhelming support of the people of this country. Even if you are right, and I don't believe you are, when you say the values you espouse were the same as those of pre-industrial America, sooner or later you and like-minded theocrats are going to have to wake up and realise that this is no longer the 1890's. No matter how scary today's times are, you and yours are going to have to learn to live in them. When you say that the problem is that the government needed to be more militantly white-protestant in its thinking I am immediately reminded of the old definition on insanity - when some action doesn't produce the desired results - do it again, harder.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Stan Shannon

Jon, there is no possibility of a doubt that I am incorrect on this issue. Christian moral values have been at the heart of American civilization since the founding of the nation and before. Religion in general seems to be a necessary component of human civilization, and christianity is ours. The two are inextricably entwined. To separate them is to kill them both. And, no, I do not base that on any sort of fundamentalist religious beliefs of my own. It is an entirely rational, scientific perspective. I accept it for precisely the same reason I accept evolutionary theory. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary and tons of evidence to support it. If there is any association at all with bin ladin, sharia law or whatever, it is that a civilization has to have some kind of moral foundation. The people who comprise a civilization must believe in something bigger than themselves. They must believe that there is some very important reason to act in a specified way or else our most base animal instincts will become the dominant force in our society, reguiring ever more centralized, authoritarian rule over our lives. We once had a perfect balance between liberty and civil, morality based, responsibililty in our society. That balance is what really protected us from both sharia type tyranny and marxist tryanny at the same time. You can dismiss that as old fashioned all you like, it remains an essential element of our civilization if we wish to maintain true liberty.

Oakman wrote:

No matter how scary today's times are, you and yours are going to have to learn to live in them.

As a matter of fact, we don't. There is going to be no way to 'live in them' regardless of how much we submit. It simply is not going to work. That is not our fault it is simply the nature of human civilization. If you don't believe that, than simply continue the experiment. I'll be happy to say I told you so if I live that long.

Oakman wrote:

When you say that the problem is that the government needed to be more militantly white-protestant in its thinking I am immediately reminded of the old definition on insanity - when some action doesn't produce the desired results - do it again, harder.

On the other hand, instanity is also looking at a social formula that was producing the desired results and purposefully obliterating it just becuase you desired different results.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

They must believe that there is some very important reason to act in a specified way or else our most base animal instincts will become the dominant force in our society, reguiring ever more centralized, authoritarian rule over our lives

But, if I understand you, you don't. Instead you appear to be using Christanity as a cover for your fear of anything you don't understand. You seem to be praising religion because it can rule through fear - here on earth and by using threats about an afterlife (which, apparently, you are no more sure of than I am.) What is it you are so afraid of that you have this overwhelming need to coerce everyone else into behaving the way you do?

Stan Shannon wrote:

On the other hand, instanity is also looking at a social formula that was producing the desired results and purposefully obliterating it just becuase you desired different results.

Strictly speaking, no. That isn't insanity. That's changing the rules of the game so you come out the winner. Since the original rules were stacked in someone else's favor, that's actually a definition of survival.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Instead you appear to be using Christanity as a cover for your fear of anything you don't understand. You seem to be praising religion because it can rule through fear - here on earth and by using threats about an afterlife (which, apparently, you are no more sure of than I am.) What is it you are so afraid of that you have this overwhelming need to coerce everyone else into behaving the way you do?

Jon, that is ridiculous beyond words. I mean, here you are fear mongering about me fear mongering. You are doing precisely what you are accusing me of by accusing me of it. "The fear mongers are coming, the fear mongers are coming!!! Run away!!!!" :laugh: Not very mensa like of you, I must say.

Oakman wrote:

Since the original rules were stacked in someone else's favor, that's actually a definition of survival.

No, I'm actually pretty damned sure that willingly changing the rules that were stacked in your favor to be stacked in favor of someone else pretty much defines suicide.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

I mean, here you are fear mongering about me fear mongering.

I said that's what it seemed like to me. I'd be delighted to have a rational explanation for your behavior. As I said, you are a puzzlement to me. By the way, I certainly am not advocating anyone running away from you. Not even your family. ;)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Chris Austin

FTA

"We've seen how it has contributed to some serious problems in our nation and world," McCain said, in an apparent reference to the government under GOP control. "Let me blunt, you can't assume you're electing the right leaders to handle all the problems facing our nation when you make your choice based on one issue. More and more people are finally getting that."

Either McCain knew this before the election and willfully partook in wild double think when he chose his running mate or he did an honest postmortem on the results.

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell

Oakman

Chris Austin wrote:

he did an honest postmortem on the results.

If the September semi-crash had been successfully postponed until after the election, do you think McCain would have won?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Chris Austin

Oakman wrote:

If the September semi-crash had been successfully postponed until after the election, do you think McCain would have won?

I think he had a Puncher's Chance until he chose Palin not much more. After that choice it was like watching a reality TV show.

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell

Oakman

Chris Austin wrote:

he chose Palin not much more

I said, in this forum the day after her selection, that he'd committed suicide by choosing her. I felt very sad watching someone I had respected pander to the Christian right-wing so many times in so many ways. I admit, I was taken aback by the rockstar treatment she received from some Republicans, and very angered by the trashmouthing immediately evidenced by the left when they began to perceive her as a threat (similar to what is now being said about everyone who attended a tea-party), but I never thought her advantages outweighed her disadvantages both directly and because of what her selection said to me about McCain.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Rob Graham

Chris Austin wrote:

Either McCain knew this before the election and willfully partook in wild double think when he chose his running mate or he did an honest postmortem on the results.

Maybe his daughter explained it to him.

Rob Graham

Oakman wrote:

pander to the Christian right-wing

There is no such thing. It's a Marxist invention . Stan just told me so.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

Stan just told me so

Well, what Number Two says, goes. At least until we find out who is Number One.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Chris Austin

I didn't even want to go there :-D

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell

Chris Austin

:laugh:

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell