Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Republicans will rule for 1000 years...." (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: "Republicans will rule for 1000 years...."
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On another thread, we got this bit of partisan chest-beating -- but it made me think.

Let's assume that the Democratic Party is broken. It's actually not a bad assumption -- and I'm speaking here as a moderate Democrat, mind you -- because the traditional alliances that make up the Democratic Party do not, in any logical universe, make any sense.

So let's assume that, as a politcal power, the Democrats go away.

Do we really think the Republican Party will rule, in its present form, for anything resembling a century, much less a millennium?

In my opinion, the Republican Party is made up of as uneasy a set of alliances as the Democrats, but has the advantage at the moment of being united by a certain degree of hatred and resentment. Once it's on top, I see no reason why those hatreds and resentments will suffice to keep it together.

It's my opinion, then, that the Republican Party will almost immediately fracture following the death of the Democratic Party -- along religious and authoritarian lines. There's a strong libertarian leaning that sits very, very uncomfortably with the Religious Right, in particular; these two groups are logical choices for spinoff parties.

Given that the Dems are generally split between libertarians and victim politics, the creation of a viable socially and fiscally liberal party -- which would NOT be the Republican Party, and is unlikely to be the existing Libertarian Party (given its reputation of consisting almost entirely of whackjobs) -- seems inevitable.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mv
Member
Member # 462

 - posted      Profile for mv     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Arggh, now we into something interesting indeed...

Lets start with the easy one:

quote:
Do we really think the Republican Party will rule, in its present form, for anything resembling a century, much less a millennium?

ten years; with luck, twenty. The nature of the system is such that a second party much emerge. (Of course, assuming that Reps do not pass an "Enabling Act" or change the rules.)

The rest is much harder to foresee...for example, do Dems totally go away or stay for a while as the third party (something like Liberals in UK). This would totally change the dynamics; but I guess this is not feasible in the current system.

TD is correct, I think, that the existing third parties are not suitable for forming a national party, so the second party would come from reshuffling Republicans (with viable remaining Dems crossing the lines).

My guess, however, is that the division would come not on any issue we can identify now; it would be a pretty much random reshuffle, arising from local politics. In essense, Rep primaries become synonymous with general elections for a couple of cycles; local alliances are formed, based on local issues; by the third cycle there will be competing nationwide loosely defined networks; another cycle or two and they would combine into new parties.

Incidently, something like this might be very healthy: it would eliminate party-line voters, which are currently in the majority.

Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 905

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know. With the Republican method of counting votes, it's likely that not only will the Republican Party rule in the US for another thousand years, but within the next couple decades Bush is likely to be elected president of China.
Posts: 253 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't know. With the Republican method of counting votes, it's likely that not only will the Republican Party rule in the US for another thousand years, but within the next couple decades Bush is likely to be elected president of China.
Thus preventing the U.S. from becoming China inthe next couple of decades ...
[Wink]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

Allow me to preface this by stating that I AM NOT ignoring you . I am trying to keep up with at least three threads, all at the same time. Granted, I do use Opera, and can open multiple windows, but still I must take them one at a time. So kindly accept my appologies, if you feel offended. None were intended.

Now, about the 1000 year reign of the Third Reic............Opps, the Republican Party, I don't go along with your assumption. In point of fact, only once in our history has a major party been split asunder: that being the Whigs. In that case it was over the issue of Slavery. Today, I can think of only one thing that would cause a major split or collapse of the Democratic Party. And that would be the battle over the issue of Collectivism.

First, there have been many third parties, and there will me many more. However, the system encourages, but does not allow for more than two major parties. The Electorial College guarantees this, and I for one would look darkly upon it's dismantling, Sen Hillary aside. This country is, quite simply, a representative Republic, and the Electorial College guarantees it. The very last thing this country needs is a pure democracy too.

Imagine a pure democracy where all could use an oyster shell to write a disliked name upon it. The one with the greatest votes would be exiled(ostercised) from the very society that professed democracy. Naturally, I am not referring here to the USA. But this happened in ancient Athens, home of the first democracy. So, I will stick with the system we have, warts and all.

Now, with these warts, still it would take something truly momentous to cause one party to fall apart. Competition guarantees that there will be an ebb and flow from one party to the next. The same will hold true here.

But, I for one, will continue to look to the future with a positive attitude. The only fly in the ointment is the Collectivism that I mentioned above. What we really have here in this country is a large minority within one major party that is controling its movement,and that movement is quickly reaching critical mass. You may call them Socialists, Social Democrats, or incorrectly Liberals, but the concept is still the same. The Democratic Party is being driven by a group of people, who I will accurately call "Friendly Fascists".

Before all the Democrats reading this post, go into a deep faint, I suggest that that they do a Google search and look up Fascism and Friendly Fascism first. In a word, the only diffenence between the Fascism of old and that of today is it's reach. In the 30s, it was national, today it is international, and it is all over Europe, but firmly ensconced at that quanit building located in New York. People just don't want to admit it.

The difference between Socialism and Fascism, is who is to own the means of production. In pure Socialism, it is the State that owns the means of production. With Fascism, the means of production is still officially owned by the private sector, but it is so strangled with regulations and State predatory behavior, that it might as well be. The only difference here is that with Socialists, when the production goes into the toilet, they are held responsible. That is the main incentive to make for dictatorial Socialist countries. If you say USSR, you win!

Fascists get around this, because they don't own the means of production. There, if production goes down the toilet, they can just blame the producers. Does this sound familiar?

Now, there is a fight within the Democratic Party over it's very heart and soul. As a true Liberal, I would have been a Democrat 100 years ago. 50 years ago, probably still, but concerned none the less. Today you couldn't put a gun to my head and make me stay. The situation in that party is enought to make me want to cry. And I mean that sincerely. The very party that my fellow Classic Liberals helped make great, once upon a time, is ideologically bankrupt!

Their leaders state that they want to help the common citizen, but they proceed to do everything in their power to confiscate my private property that I work hard to obtain. They do this all in the name of what is for my own good. When the President tries to give back some of my hard earned money, the candidates promise to halt this. M. Dean says that he would repeal all the tax cuts that have given to us. Excuse me, but it wasn't their money to begin with. It's my money Damn it!

If concerned Democrats don't take a hard look at their party, and get back to their roots, the breaking apart that I mentioned, could happen. But I do believe that people like you Tom , will educate yourself enough to see this and prevent it.

I do believe in a viable two party system, and unlike many, I do not wish ill of Democrats: only Collectivists. I could go on and on, but I'm getting tired. However, I will tell you this. Collectivism, in it's many forms, has led to the death of more innocent people in the 20th Century, than any other concept in the history of mankind. All the Atheists can rail on and on about how Christianity has been the worst tyrant known to man, but I disagree. I suggest that you look up "the Black Book of Communism", and you will get some idea. Add Hitlers lessor attrocities, and you have a real holocost. As Uncle Joe once said, "One death is a Tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic". Never happen here? Remember, the very lynchpin of every dictatorship is accumulated control by the Central State.

I think that you Democrats will get the message, and the Party will not break up. But , you are going to have to make some hard choices.

I'll close with a little European cartoon that I say some time back. In the single caption, there is a big steel cage. In the cage is this huge lion, with a label of "The State" on it. Outside is a group of onlookers. They are all looking at the central figure, who is holding a chair and whip. As he opens the door to the cage, looks to the others and says, "don't worry, I can handle this thing". Sure, and I'll bet that if you put your head in it's mouth, it will give you a big lick too!

Cheers

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mv
Member
Member # 462

 - posted      Profile for mv     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This was a fascinating read indeed....

A technical question: how do you classify China? Friendly Fascists, Socialists, or Exception?

Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What we really have here in this country is a large minority within one major party that is controling its movement,and that movement is quickly reaching critical mass."

What's odd about this is that I feel exactly the same way about the Republican Party, too. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that the Democratic party isn't going to die out (though if it did it would be the third major party in US history to do so). I do think it is headed for a period of minority party status, much like the Republican party after the FDR tidal wave.

Right now its major problem as far as presidential elections are concerned is that the positions needed to win primaries have been rejected by a majority in this country. So the democratic candidates has to swing left in order to win the nomination, and then either keep those positions and lose, or swing back toward the center, lose their fringe elements to the Green party, etc., and lose (Al Gore).

Mind you, the same thing could end up happening to the Republicans, but right now the have a "hang together or hang separately" attitude that allows the two main elements to ignore each other's faults.

In the future I could see more moderate Democrats abandoning their party for the Republican party, the Libertarian Republican wing getting sidelined and breaking off, and whatever party they form and the Democratic party competing for 2nd party status. The probable winner I think would be the Libertarians, with the hard-left Democrats being reduced to third party status or disappearing.

[ December 06, 2003, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Doug64 ]

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MV,

Sorry for the poor English and typing errors in the last post, but I was tired and cranky last night.

Concerning China, I would still classify them as Socialist, since a great deal of their productive means are owned either by the State, or by the governing elites within the State system. To my mind, it doesn't really matter what little title you give them except the central theme of Collectivists.

Over the years I have tried to accumulate as much knowledge as humanly possible about political economics. And I have done a great deal of reflective thinking about the political systems as they apply throughout the world, and particularily in this country. And I have concluded that the labels in which we here used to identify these concepts are greatly flawed.

For one thing, the old concept of Left Wing and Right Wing no longer apply, as was during the French Revolution where it came into being. I think that the Libertarian concept as a four corner thing is simply too complicated. So using the KISS principle, I think a sliding scale is best with a left, a center, and a right wing.

In my scheme, the Left Wing would consist of all the many forms of Collectivism, the Center Wing would consist of Federalists, and the Right Wing would be made up of Individualists. I fall in the Individualist camp, as I think that Government should be broken down to it's lowest common FUNCTIONAL denominator. Only by doing what is truly essential, can government allow the citizen the Liberty to live his or her life as our Creator intended. That's what being a true Liberal is all about: we believe in individual Liberty.

Politicians and pundits, such as Bill O'Reilly, John McCain, Patrick Buchannan, and Joe Libermann, to mention but a few, are all Federalist in thinking. They believe in a strong, but limited government. Many of our founding fathers were indeed Federalists, and I'm not referring the the party name.

Many, however, like Patrick Henry, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, were Anti-Federalists, or what later came to be known as Liberals. They believed that the Central State should not be any stronger than was necessary, for they feared the ever growing reach of that friendly monster. Today, our system proves them to have been correct in their fears. We have a government that is slowly tightening the grip it has around the necks of each and every one of us. Most of us are not terribly concerned, because we can still breathe, and we have a great deal of wealth and distractions. But, alas, it is tightening that grip none the less.

As for China, it is certainly neither of the two systems above. It is ruled by a small elite, who have life or death powers over it's citizens, and they will use whatever means necessary to maintain that grip. And using the Collective State powers is the best means to do so. People call them Crony Capitalists, but I see them as only opportunists, who will spoon out only those Liberties that will continue to allow them to sit atop the pyramid of national power. They loosely follow the internationl laws, simply because it is in their self interests to do so.

But sooner or later, they will reach that point of crisis, which will determine whether or not Liberty will prevail, or each province province will simply break off and go it's merry, but bloody way. I think that eventually the later is most likely, as the land mass, and population is simply too great to continue on, without decentralization. Patriotism is great, but Liberty and self-determination are greater over the long run.

As you may have noticed, the total of world nation states is balooning. Single states are dividing in half, or more. Checkoslovakia is now the Chech Republic and Slovokia. Ethiopia has now divided. And the Balkins are broken into four, or is it now five states: I can't remember which. Indonesia is the next big deconstruction, in my opinion. East Timore is only the beginning of something big! Look what is going on in India. The Soviet Union is, of course, the ultimate example. Enen the Russian Federation is doing it's damnest to maintain its huge national land mass. Sooner or later, China is going to have to pay the piper, and when it does, grab the popcorn, and pour yourself a beer!

I think that by the end of the 21st century, there will be double the number of independent nation states on this planet, and this will definately be for the better. As John Naisbitt has stated, "As we act globally, we think more tribally". That is why globalization is not the big monster that the anarchists are screaming about. They can protest each and every GATT meeting, or G7 event all they wish. It won't make any difference. Once the more people of the world see how we live, they will want their share of the Liberty pie too! They WILL want to share in that wealth, but wish to maintain their own identity. They may do business in English, but they go home and use their traditional language. Countries of great land mass simply don't make for the greatest productivity, or Liberty. So, generally speaking, it has to go, in order to accomodate Liberty.

But I doth gabb too much. China is Collectivist, and thus my political enemy, because they threaten my Liberty. Anyone who would take away my Liberties with the threat of force is, indeed, my enemy. And they should be so with all of us. That doesn't mean that we should not be friendly or accomodating to them, just ever vigilent.

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That doesn't mean that we should not be friendly or accomodating to them, just ever vigilent.
John, I'm follwoing a lot of what you're saying but for this one line.

I tend to disagree with accomodating. I think a more agressive approach could hasten a break up. I'm not saying do anything aggressive or provocative that might start WW3 but I would like to see pressure placed somehow that could bring about a internal revolution.

Does anybody have any ideas on a reasonable way to do that? Economic pressure maybe?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

I feel that your concerns regarding the Republicans are misplaced. There is, indeed, only one instance that you can name, and that is the "so called" religious right. And this is what astounds me on a regular basis. Atheists(which is a humanist religion in itself)and agnostics simply fail to grasp the basic tenent of Christianity. Probably because they don't want to. And that is the fact that Christianity is the relationship of God with each and every Individual, not group, like some other religions. Since it is Individualist in nature, it cannot by default, be the agent of mass oppression. This is why Christianity played such a central role with our founding fathers, and no amount of revisionist propoganda will change that.

Granted, in the past certain people and States have USED Christianity, through the Roman Catholic Church, to attain their goals, but not for long. That is what the Protestant Reformation was all about. Minus the corruption of the earlier Roman Church, I challenge anyone to show where Christianity has taken away the Liberties of a free people, Oliver Cromwell being a short term exception. Rather, it enhances it! This is going to raise a stink, but I suggest that everyone reflect first prior to clicking out the loud protests over the web. I simply don't want to get into a massive theological food fight.

Tom, the only other possible group within the Republicans that could split is the Libertarians, of which I belong. But unfortunately, the Libertarian Party is run by the Anarchistic wing of that thinking, and it simply doesn't hold my allegiance. Consequently, I remain Independent by nature.

The Democrats are now nothing but a loosely held group of Special Interest groups, who are pulling and tugging in every which direction. The Trial Lawyer's Association wants to line their pocketbooks, and prevent Tort reform. The militant feminests, have their agenda, and it doesn't include true Liberty among the sexes. The NAACP maintains it's victum status(Like the Palestinians in the Middle East), and they demand their quotas. The Greenie Weenies want to stop EVERYTHING that interfeers with their pagen religious ideas: and they will leave if they can't get their own way. Need I go on. Everyone of these groups doesn't really give a hang about the others,except that they know that they have to stick together or they have no power.

And POWER is what it is all about here. And how do you get and maintain power? Why,......the central State is the answer. And what does the central State, by default do by it's very nature? Well, it accumulates power, that's what. And who suffers because of this. If you said "we the People", you win!

Because of this power grab within a single party, your party, we can't have meaningful Social Security reform whilst it slowly goes bankrupt. Black children can't obtain school vouchers that would give them the very opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty, because the "so called" Black leaders fear loss of power. We can't have any meaningful tort reform, because trial lawyers would have to stop lining their pockets with frivolous law suits. The Greenies want to stop growth and the accumulation of wealth among it's citizens, because they fear this false Anthropomorphic Global warming, along with countless other charges. They don't understand that the more wealth we attain, the more we look out for the environment. Militant Feminists, are so obsessed with their disdane of the opposite sex that they wish to twist political correctness into such a pretzel that it can't ever be straightened out.

Oh, I forgot the National Teachers Unions, or the Homosexual lobby. Need I go on? And you think that it is the Republicans who have you concerned, because of those ever dangerous Chirstians? Tom, you need an out of body experience! I have had mine, but I'm probably a fair bit older than you are(I'm over 40, but I'm not going to tell you how much). These groups have only one thing that glues them together, and that is the accumulation of State power by the ever tightening grip of Collectivist principles. And it is, by default, this very thing that will bring them down. You can't have Liberty, and at the same time attempt to use State control in order to impose what you think is best for them. The people will eventuall rise up and overthrow them.

So, it is up to you Democrats to do your own dirty laundry. I can't do it for you. If you have a problem, and believe me you all do, then get rid of it. And if you can't get rid of it, my best advice is to get away from the problem. I have already done so. I'm no longer a Republican, because, they are really beginning to worry me. But that's another story.

Cheers!

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

If the Democratic party is "broken" it is because, IMHO, it has sunk into demagoguery. It needs to return its focus back to the people without trying to please them all.

The current selection of democratic candidates, again MHO, are too busy trying to win the approval of their party members and too little focused on what is truly best for the country.

Just so, the Republican party could break too. It could become too focused on business and to little focused on what's best for the country.

Now, there will be some who disagree with me on all the above points. Be my guest, but don't forget... This is _my opinion_ nothing more. [Smile]

Ed Dana.

Edited spelling the spellchecker didn't edit. [Smile]

[ December 06, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: EDanaII ]

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gary,

By accomodating, I don't mean giving in. Or giving up one's principles, and believe me, I have a of them for better or worse. I mean that where their interests and yours coincide, go with it. Ronald Regan did that with the Soviet Union in the 1980s. you just don't back down, or give in to them.

Thanks for the support!

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Since it is Individualist in nature, it cannot by default, be the agent of mass oppression."

John, I'm afraid this is ******** . You do the convenient debate trick in your post of defining "Christian" rather narrowly, so as to leave yourself an out -- but, let's face it: there have been non-Catholic Christian oppressors, too. [Smile]

I respect the fact that you're a man of faith -- faith in your liberties, your God, and your Party -- but don't let your faith be BLIND, 'k? I don't know you well enough to be able to say whether your faith in yourself is misplaced -- but surely you're able to admit, honestly, that the Christian church has made a few obvious blunders, or that the Republican Party has some pretty major collectivist elements in it, as well, many of which are related strongly to exactly those Christian elements I mentioned earlier....

[ December 06, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doug64

Actually, the Whigs are the only major political party to really break up. The Federalist Party more or less morphed into the Republican party. By the same token, the earlier party of Jefferson was called the Republican Democratic Party (or was it the Democratic Republican Party), but dropped the Republican part and bacame known as the Democrats, which are still around today, in name only.

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

First of all, I am an Independent, not a Republican. I do tend to vote with them, but do also vote for Independents and Libertarians. I voted for Harry Brown in the last Presidential election, because I thought GW had an unsurmountable lead over AlGore. So I voted my conscience. Had I known that that last minute dirty trick about the DUI incident would change things, I would have voted for GW. I think that the same, but failed attempt with Arnold proves that the electorate is getting wiser.

But yes, I am a man of faith. That's why I am an Acton Classic Liberal. But to convict the concept by the actions of the few is showing bad faith on the part of the accusor. Those who do not believe that Christianity is a force for good in this world, or that our forefathers were not steeped in Christianity, are locked in Intellectual laziness of the highest order.

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is not that I don't believe Christians have been a source of good, but that I don't believe CHRISTIANITY is likely to be -- especially the Christianity of hell and brimstone that's typical of its loudest adherents.

Frankly, given your love of liberty, I'm rather surprised that you aren't more troubled by the Religious Right in its current form -- or, for that matter, the Republican Party. Neither are particularly known for their embrace of freedom.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

I do not believe that there is the "hell fire and brimstone" either. As a matter, of fact I believe that my God is a loving one, and does not have to use hollow threats to keep us on the straight and narrow. If certain folks feel that they need negative reinforcement to maintain their straight and narrow, then allow them their due. They are not threatening MY Liberties. Your's perhaps? And which Liberties would those be? But if they were, I would be on them like stink on.........well, white on rice.

And for them to cause me worry about my Liberties? Gentle Man, did you read my part posting? I quickly laid forth my honest grievances at the foot of your party. If that does not worry me, or you for that matter, someone is not resorting to reason here And I realize that I have more then 20 years down the road of life than you, so I can expect to be wiser than you.

But for you to cast aspersions in my direction, and link me to a party, of which I am not a member, is less than disingenuous. Furthermore, it is the Republican's opponents, your "so called Democrats" who should first put aside their thirst for power,and place their own house in order, before they throw the first stones. But I am wasting my time here. Kindly reread my previous posting. I meant only to inform the truth as best as this humble servant is able.

As the saying goes, "There are none so blind, as those who will look, but not see. And none so deaf, as those who would hear, but not listen". There is a difference

G-d Bless you!

PS: As a person under 30, you might want be more than concerned about what YOU are going to be doing soon about MY Social Security. Those horrible Republicans are trying to keep it solvent and allow you Dot commers to retire in solvency. At the same time those wonderfully honest Democrats are doing their level best to keep YOU pointed down the road to financial ruin. But hey, it's going to be people like YOU, who will be paying for MY later years. I hope hope to enjoy them as best I can.

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Atheists(which is a humanist religion in itsel"

Please delve into the archives thread. Atheism REALLY isn't a religion, although there are some atheists who treat their atheism like a religion, but... thats not most of us.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And I realize that I have more then 20 years down the road of life than you, so I can expect to be wiser than you."

Oh, wow. By that logic, Ted Kennedy is wiser than either of us. But I digress. [Smile]

"But for you to cast aspersions in my direction, and link me to a party, of which I am not a member, is less than disingenuous. Furthermore, it is the Republican's opponents, your 'so called Democrats' who should first put aside their thirst for power, and place their own house in order, before they throw the first stones."

My point in my last post -- which you apparently missed, despite your wisdom -- was that I am challenging your claim that it is the Democrats who are primarily at fault, or even necessarily more "Collectivist" than the Republicans. In fact, I assert that the Republican Party is as authoritarian in its own way as the Democrats, but that you don't notice this because you are comfortable with their forms of authoritarianism. Moreover, while it's certainly amusing of you to paraphrase scripture when talking politics, it's worth noting that you were, in fact, the first person on this thread to throw any stones. MY only point has been that the sins of which you accuse the Democratic Party -- a bent towards collectivism and a desperate need for power -- are ones that the Republicans also possess in spades. Regardless of whether or not you consider yourself a Republican, you come off as rather pathetically partisan -- your attitude towards Social Security, for example, betrays a certain naivete regarding the Republican "plan" for that program -- and so I'd encourage you to take a second look at your own biases before attacking other people for theirs.

[ December 06, 2003, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
John L., you stated:
quote:
Atheists(which is a humanist religion in itself)and agnostics simply fail to grasp the basic [tenet] of Christianity. Probably because they don't want to. And that is the fact that Christianity is the relationship of God with each and every Individual, not group, like some other religions. Since it is Individualist in nature, it cannot by default, be the agent of mass oppression.
and then…
quote:
As the saying goes, "There are none so blind, as those who will look, but not see. And none so deaf, as those who would hear, but not listen".
Many will find these statements, taken together, as a bit funny. Even if you don’t agree with how some in the religious right interpret Christianity, are you truly blind to how many are using this religion to drive their political agenda, which is very much anti-classical liberal? Anti-homosexual and anti-abortion legislation springs immediately to mind…
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Atheists(which is a humanist religion in itself)and agnostics simply fail to grasp the basic [tenet] of Christianity. Probably because they don't want to. And that is the fact that Christianity is the relationship of God with each and every Individual, not group, like some other religions. Since it is Individualist in nature, it cannot by default, be the agent of mass oppression.
Why also do you postulate that they "simply fail to grasp the basic [tenet] of Christianity?" As a non-christian I understand the aspect of Christianity that for many it is a relationship between God and each individual. That's great. Skadoo for them. What does that have to do with republicans?

And it is not THE basic tenet of Christianity.

And if Christianity can't be an agent of oppression I guess you think the Salem witch trials, the inquisition, and the Catholic Church had nothing to do with Christianity, right?

[ December 06, 2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: kelcimer ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

You're use of Uncle Teddy is a great case in point. Do you honestly think for one moment that he really believes all that Collectivist drivel? He does so because, as a man with considerable wisdom, he knows that this is the best way for him to acquire and maintain POWER!

Now, Uncle Teddy's honesty is another subject. And moral courage is yet another trait that is debatable. For that matter, I wouldn't trust him alone with even SimplyBiological.

And yes I would consider myself as one who has acquired a fair amount of wisdom over the years. I'm also wise enought to realize that I am dealing with someone who is using that time honoured youthful refrain. The ones that go like "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind made up", or "I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong".

And, as usual, something said in toto is taken in piece to be misrepresented. It is the LEADERSHIP that I have been asailing for their thirst for power. Somehow I think you and other know this, but choose to forget. So, if you look at the trees and can't see the forest, it is not I who is the loser. I can't go on, so I won't say anymore. I've already made my point.

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm also wise enought to realize that I am dealing with someone who is using that time honoured youthful refrain. The ones that go like 'Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind made up,' or 'I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.'"

Ah. So because you cannot actually logically rebut any of my points, you're going to throw up your hands and say that I -- based on my "youthful" lack of experience -- have made up my mind and am being unreasonably impervious to your imparted "wisdom?"

John, for someone who acts as though he's reasonably familiar with debate, you're not actually very good at it.

I can understand if you feel a bit overwhelmed; a lot of us know quite a lot about these issues, and have discussed them extensively already, and you certainly didn't dip a toe into the water before leaping in. If you'd like, let's take things one step at a time; address the Christianity issue that people have mentioned, above, and we'll move on from there.

[ December 06, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, come on, John – after spending several posts insulting TomD based on his perceived youth and inability to reason, you’re going to pick up your ball and go home when you can’t address his one, simple point?

As an aside, and in case you are not aware, your language is rife with both condescension and false humility; this is a very annoying combination, even to those of us toward whom it is not addressed.

<edit> oops, seems as though Tom already addressed this

[ December 06, 2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1710.cfm#pgfId-1092505

edit: That's for John L.

[ December 06, 2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anglachel
Member
Member # 647

 - posted      Profile for Anglachel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom:
quote:
"...and is unlikely to be the existing Libertarian Party (given its reputation of consisting almost entirely of whackjobs)
If this is meant as insult, I severely protest. I much prefer to be called a crackpot, loon, or ninnyhammer (if you're feelin' the ninnyhammer vibe). [Big Grin]

[ December 06, 2003, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Anglachel ]

Posts: 214 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I wouldn't trust him alone with even SimplyBiological.
i can't decide whether this is a compliment or not, but regardless... you're already on shady ground with me, and this isn't helping.
Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're right, Ang. The Libertarian Party is more the crackpot type; the Greens are the whackjobs.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
REVOLTING
Member
Member # 1415

 - posted      Profile for REVOLTING     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As the author of the "Republicans will rule for 1,000 years", I shall tell you I was engaging in hyperbole not hubris.

I did state the far left of the Dem Party would gravitate to the Green Party. The Green Party is a viable hard-left political entity in several industrialized nations and will, quite likely, grow in influence and card-carrying membership over time in a way the Libertarian Party on the right has not.

As the Green Party grows, the Democratic Party will diminish in size. The Green Party and Democratic Party will form alliances in state and the national legislatures to form a viable counter-weight to Republicans.

I reject the notion the Rupublican Party, like the Democrat Party, is an assemblage of disparate special interest groups with little in common other than a party designation. Unlike Democrats, Republicans are linked by a common set of values..

Posts: 131 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Unlike Democrats, Republicans are linked by a common set of values..."

This, my friend, is unadulterated crap. [Smile]

I'll wait while you try to come up with a list of values common to all Republicans. Let me know when you give up.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

As Ronald Reagon used to say, "there you go again". Revolting assumed that people would understand that, in his last sentence he meant the sentence to go like this:" Unlike "MOST" Democrats, "MOST" Republicans are linked by a common set of values.." If I can use reason, and see this, why can't you?

You follow up with,"I'll wait while you try to come up with a list of values common to all Republicans." ALL Republicans? ALL? You are assuming that ALL, 100%, must agree on some value to be shared? Do you really believe that? Also, as a party continues to grow in size, as with the Republicans, is it fair to expect everyone to agree everything? Judging by this admission by you, you believe that the school system is doing fine, Social security ain't about broken, money grows on trees, the central State can do no wrong, among others. After all, "ALL" Democrats hold this view, right?

Personnaly, I can't understand how more disgruntled Democrats AND Republicans don't just join the ranks of Independent, and say "pox on both your houses". After all, I don't agree to ALL the beliefs of either party. I guess that more people than not are party driven, and not idealogy driven. It could also have something to do with how secure one is with one's self too, and his or her beliefs.

SimplyBiological, please note that last sentence.

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
John-
The republican party is a huge assemblage of differently valued groups.
On the one hand, there are libertarian types, who don't want government interference with ANYTHING. This view is taken, for example, by the NRA.
On the other hand, there are religious factions, who want to see government interference in EVERYTHING, from welfare to abortion, to marriage. OSC does not vote republican all the time, but he embodies a wing of the republican party, and represents the policies these people would like to see enacted.

While the two parties present a united front on most issues most of the time, there are divisions in both parties that run very deep. McCain, Snow, Jeffords, etc. represent some of those divisions within the republican party. Although jeffords is no longer republican, he started that way, and his voters in vermont seem to support the political shift he made.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mv
Member
Member # 462

 - posted      Profile for mv     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Although jeffords is no longer republican, he started that way, and his voters in vermont seem to support the political shift he made.
... which incidently is a proof that there are some shared values Mr. Jeffords did not share.

Seconding John, it is not possible to find an idea which covers any larger party. However, the general motive:
Strong defense
Smaller government: Less government regulations
Traditional values: No to social engineering
do resonate among the majority of the party.

As for "religious fanatics" of the right: this is a straw man you have invented and beating. Yes, there may be a tiny fringe percentage that take the religion as the ultimate truth; just like there are fringe religious groups on the left (islamists, enviromentalists, etc). The majority of 40% of the religious populations are not fanatics and are totally compatible with other "shared ideas".

On the other hand, what are the shared ideas of the Democratic party? On is obvious,

Hate Bush

Anything else?

Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OH S--T, I am in deep trouble now!

I really screwed up........big time!

Here I thought I was not only being cute, but at the same time pointing out that I am not sexist. On a previous post I asked SimplyBiological to note the last sentence. I was trying to point out that I was including the male, as well female gender to the language of my post.

I just went back and reread the post, and horrors......................I also included the point about "being secure with one's self". Gulp! Am I in trouble.........or what? Anyone have a Valium? Please?

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard,

The last of your posts, in general, shows some sound and logical thought. I see hope for you yet!

However, let me point out some particulars that are not correct. First of all, the majority of Libertarians are either Republican or Independent, like me. 99% of these are pragmatic Libertarians. Many, like me, are Classic Liberals, because we also look at life in terms of an political/economic nature. After all, as an anthropologist by schooling, I know that reciprocity is what makes the world go round, and this is the central point to economics, and life in general.

The Libertarians you are pointing to reside almost exclusively within the Libertarian Party. Most, but not all party members, are pure Anarchistic Libertarians. All you Libertarian Party members, don't argue with me on this. I have been to a couple of the local Raleigh Libertarian get togethers, and OhhWeee....Holy Rothbard Batman! Nope, most of we Libertarians are definately not like what you mention. Trust me on that one.

The point you make about the NRA is, I assume, in like nature to the Libertarian one, since they seem to be lumped together. That isn't true. You assume that they are promoting the unrestricted freedom to own and use firearms. That is not the case. They are pointing out the fact that the Constitution acknowledges that we have the Liberty to own and use firearms. And there is a difference here.

Most people use the word freedom to be interchanged with that of the word Liberty. They are not the same. In freedom, you have the unrestricted right to your actions. With Liberty, you have the freedom on one hand, but are saddled with moral responsibility on the other. And here is where most people fail to understand the import of Chirstianity in American philosophy. It is the moral restraint that Christianity tries to place over the freedom part that makes Liberty and it's religious ties so important here. If you believe that certain Liberties are not given by man, but by our creator, then the moral brakes are necessary in order to curb the very anarchistic tendencies that total freedom would unleash.

So, The NRA believes that we have the G-d given Liberty to own and bear arms: not for sport hunting; not just for personal protection; but protection from an opressive government. When you remove this Liberty, you are opening the door to potential opression. And I agree with the NRA, even though I am not a member.

And I agree that there are religious Federalists, who would impose certain Federal restrictions upon the public. But there are simply too many cooler head out there, such as me, who will not allow this to happen. Now, can you say the same thing about the Collectivists among us who would like to accumulate more power to the central State?

Anyway, I see hope for you, partner!

By the way, here is a useful tidbit that most of us are not aware of. In the Second Ammendment, it calls for a "well Regulated Militia". Do you know what "Regulated" really means. If you know what it meant when the James Madison wrote that piece, it would change the way we have to look at the passage.

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 905

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The last of your posts, in general, shows some sound and logical thought. I see hope for you yet
Gosh, I don't know. Paul is a bit immature -- you sure talking with those kind of advanced concepts and vocabular won't overwhelm the poor little guy?

And besides, let's not get his hopes up with that kind of talk, okay? Just give him something shiny to play with, so he can go back to the elementary and illogical posts he's used to writing.

Posts: 253 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't need to actually talk to him, Lalo. Just absorb his mighty delphic wisdom and be happy that he's around to save us all from our own ignorance.
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL!

I want everyone to know, including you know who, that I DID NOT pay off anyone, like certain thing tanks, to say these things.

I was merely tryin to lay down a thin layer of honey, not the usual vinegar.

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Smile]
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1