Interesting read, thanks Keven. On the surface it sounds plausible. but as it states at the end only time will tell.
please call your congress critters and oppose this.
- Thread starter hunter
- Start date
Help Support :
Panthera, I agree with you, with one exception.
Except I see no difference between the liberals and the conservatives.
I don't see liberals as trying to expand civil rights, they are as bad as the conservatives, just in differing ways.
Regarding constitutions and Germany, I had forgotten entirely that Germany had one -- your comments made my pea brain remember some stuff from high school history class (which was a long time ago!). So thank you.
I also have said for ages that both the D and the R folks support illegal immigration. Rs want slave labor for the factories and farm fields. Ds want slave labor for gardeners and nannies.
Now what is the common theme here?
I still don't understand why Americans treat 'freedom' as 'freedom to own as many material goods as I want' and not freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, including warrantless arrest, sneak and peak searches, random "stop and frisk" on the streets, the necessity to show a government issue internal passport prior to boarding common carrier transportation, and about 10,000 other things that I would really rather not think up right now because I"ll get irritated all over again!
If the Republicans would dump the Christianists they'd be a party that would never be out of power. If they would reach out to gay folks -- the Republicans have FAR more to offer to gays than the democrats do. FAR more. But they are too stupid.
Hunter
Except I see no difference between the liberals and the conservatives.
I don't see liberals as trying to expand civil rights, they are as bad as the conservatives, just in differing ways.
Regarding constitutions and Germany, I had forgotten entirely that Germany had one -- your comments made my pea brain remember some stuff from high school history class (which was a long time ago!). So thank you.
I also have said for ages that both the D and the R folks support illegal immigration. Rs want slave labor for the factories and farm fields. Ds want slave labor for gardeners and nannies.
Now what is the common theme here?
I still don't understand why Americans treat 'freedom' as 'freedom to own as many material goods as I want' and not freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, including warrantless arrest, sneak and peak searches, random "stop and frisk" on the streets, the necessity to show a government issue internal passport prior to boarding common carrier transportation, and about 10,000 other things that I would really rather not think up right now because I"ll get irritated all over again!
If the Republicans would dump the Christianists they'd be a party that would never be out of power. If they would reach out to gay folks -- the Republicans have FAR more to offer to gays than the democrats do. FAR more. But they are too stupid.
Hunter
Hunter:
Please, and I am asking with absolute sincerity, what does, in your opinion (as a straight man) that the CURRENT Republican party has to offer to G-L-B-T folks?
My Father's Republican party was conservative financially, but rather "live and let live" socially. Not perfectly, I admit. However, I don't see much of that in today's Republican party.
Yes, I have certainly heard of the "Log Cabin Republicans," (even dated one for a few months,) but I just don't see whatever it is that the current Republican party has to offer me.
In my own way, I am a family man. I worry about American families. I worry about decent educations for all, regardless of income, ethnicity, or access. I worry about giant corporations who do not have the health of children in mind when they push crap cereals, "lunch" kits, and fruit and vegetables loaded with pesticides and other chemicals. I worry about the economic necessity of the two income family, particularly on the coasts, and the availability of safe, decent, daycare. I worry about our elderly, and their access to the services that might allow them to stay home a little longer, than in an expensive, and not-very-good "nursing home," or "Lifecare Village." Around here, for elder care, there are no good ones, only less-bad ones, I visit one monthly in a capacity for my church. Being single, and having had serious, complex health issues a few times, I've been in nursing homes myself. I am frightened that there are more African-American men in prison than in college. Post-secondary education, be it college/university or a technical school is not a luxury for anyone, any more.
Family Man, ya shoor, you betcha.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
Please, and I am asking with absolute sincerity, what does, in your opinion (as a straight man) that the CURRENT Republican party has to offer to G-L-B-T folks?
My Father's Republican party was conservative financially, but rather "live and let live" socially. Not perfectly, I admit. However, I don't see much of that in today's Republican party.
Yes, I have certainly heard of the "Log Cabin Republicans," (even dated one for a few months,) but I just don't see whatever it is that the current Republican party has to offer me.
In my own way, I am a family man. I worry about American families. I worry about decent educations for all, regardless of income, ethnicity, or access. I worry about giant corporations who do not have the health of children in mind when they push crap cereals, "lunch" kits, and fruit and vegetables loaded with pesticides and other chemicals. I worry about the economic necessity of the two income family, particularly on the coasts, and the availability of safe, decent, daycare. I worry about our elderly, and their access to the services that might allow them to stay home a little longer, than in an expensive, and not-very-good "nursing home," or "Lifecare Village." Around here, for elder care, there are no good ones, only less-bad ones, I visit one monthly in a capacity for my church. Being single, and having had serious, complex health issues a few times, I've been in nursing homes myself. I am frightened that there are more African-American men in prison than in college. Post-secondary education, be it college/university or a technical school is not a luxury for anyone, any more.
Family Man, ya shoor, you betcha.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
I think you should be FIRST!
Well, my dog already is. She doesn't seem to mind. I mean, seriously, what's the big deal?
Kids are now being monitored 24/7 in kindergarten and schools. Their parent's can track them via their cellulars and there are cameras all over town that capture everyone and everything all the time.
Insurance companies are toying with the idea of DNA profiling existing and prospective clients. It is going to be a matter of time before they will make it a requirement and other businesses are sure to follow. The idea of establishing a national database, that stores everyone's medical histories, will become a reality in the next decade or two and a
(inter)national DNA database will also become reality.
Right now every purchase that we make using plastic allows other people to trace our movements and draw numerous conclusions about our life-styles and who were are. We are being watched and recorded in most public places, stores and on public transport. Information on our commercial activities and personal details are salable and traded between organizations right now.
Do you really think that all of this 'new' technology will be allowed to go to waste without putting it to good use? At the end of the day nobody gives a stuff about the rights of other individuals. The only thing that matters is MONEY! You don't matter, I don't matter, but what we have in our back pocket is what matters.
Eventually we will be microchipped and everything from making purchases, travelling, health, employment and whatever else people will think of will be dependent on it.
Well, my dog already is. She doesn't seem to mind. I mean, seriously, what's the big deal?
Kids are now being monitored 24/7 in kindergarten and schools. Their parent's can track them via their cellulars and there are cameras all over town that capture everyone and everything all the time.
Insurance companies are toying with the idea of DNA profiling existing and prospective clients. It is going to be a matter of time before they will make it a requirement and other businesses are sure to follow. The idea of establishing a national database, that stores everyone's medical histories, will become a reality in the next decade or two and a
(inter)national DNA database will also become reality. Right now every purchase that we make using plastic allows other people to trace our movements and draw numerous conclusions about our life-styles and who were are. We are being watched and recorded in most public places, stores and on public transport. Information on our commercial activities and personal details are salable and traded between organizations right now.
Do you really think that all of this 'new' technology will be allowed to go to waste without putting it to good use? At the end of the day nobody gives a stuff about the rights of other individuals. The only thing that matters is MONEY! You don't matter, I don't matter, but what we have in our back pocket is what matters.
Eventually we will be microchipped and everything from making purchases, travelling, health, employment and whatever else people will think of will be dependent on it.
dogboy44
Well-known member
oh yes, let's most certainly have these
and make it manditory to register your sexual orientation, national origin, and religious affliation on them. They could color code the cards to immediately identify your most positive and negative traits. Just to make it easier, we can all wear lanyards and have the info immediately in plain sight so there is no question as to who and what you are dealing with.
and make it manditory to register your sexual orientation, national origin, and religious affliation on them. They could color code the cards to immediately identify your most positive and negative traits. Just to make it easier, we can all wear lanyards and have the info immediately in plain sight so there is no question as to who and what you are dealing with.
Well, my dog already is. She doesn't seem to mind. I mea
Obviously, you haven't been doing your research. There's been a big problem with tumors cropping up in animals implanted with RFID chips. It's the reason I had the chip removed in my springer 3 years ago that I had installed 5 years ago. The info is all over the 'net.
Obviously, you haven't been doing your research. There's been a big problem with tumors cropping up in animals implanted with RFID chips. It's the reason I had the chip removed in my springer 3 years ago that I had installed 5 years ago. The info is all over the 'net.
Maytagbear...
You said:
>My Father's Republican party was conservative financially, but >rather "live and let live" socially. Not perfectly, I admit. >However, I don't see much of that in today's Republican party.
I don't think TODAY's Republican party has a lot to offer anyone. I"m talking about the party returning to its past, something more like from your father's time.
Limited government, low taxation, minimal regulation, and if you must have laws, have laws that PREVENT one entity from oppressing others with CLEAR and ENFORCED guidelines. But darn few of them.
Consider 'hate crimes.' I find the idea of (say) murdering someone revolting to say the least. And I certainly do understand that some are hated and sometimes murdered for characteristics such as race and sexual orientation. But the elements of hate crime laws are subjective at best, can be interpreted in ways that are byzantine and contrary to the spirit of the original law, and the enforcement spotty. Might it not be more logical simply to have the sentence enhancements that (say) come with a hate crime murder on ANY murder? Is not murder a heinous crime, and mal per se?
Please, I don't want a flame war ... do not take me as saying 'hate crime laws are bad!' But what I AM saying is that in my opinion, as a nation, we have lost our way as Americans. We used to be a nation of people who valued our freedom to live our lives as we saw fit. Yes, we had and have horrible things like the KKK and other such organizations, and yes, we had, and have, discrimination. As a society we have been working through this. But we've reached the point where everyone acts as though they are made of glass and that it is the job of the state to protect them from every difficulty, legal, economic, psychological, and spiritual.
Whatever happened to having a system of laws that were designed to protect liberty rather than simply force OTHER people to do stuff? Everyone says "there ought to be a law" that will, of course, apply to EVERYONE ELSE but not to him. (DUI laws, gun control laws, evironmental regulation, etc.)
I think that, in general, as a nation we have to grow up. I don't blare loud rock music at 2am because I think that it is inconsiderate to my neighbors who are trying to sleep. I expect and receive the same courtesy from them. Whatever happened to some degree of understanding that other people exist in the world? When did we get to be such a self absorbed society that we bored on the sociopathic and believe that freedom is a bad thing and that everyone should be tracked, monitored, controlled?
To me, THAT is what both the major parties stand for. That is why they are unAmerican and must go. (I know Panthera will disagree with me on that one, but we will simply have to disagree).
Hunter
You said:
>My Father's Republican party was conservative financially, but >rather "live and let live" socially. Not perfectly, I admit. >However, I don't see much of that in today's Republican party.
I don't think TODAY's Republican party has a lot to offer anyone. I"m talking about the party returning to its past, something more like from your father's time.
Limited government, low taxation, minimal regulation, and if you must have laws, have laws that PREVENT one entity from oppressing others with CLEAR and ENFORCED guidelines. But darn few of them.
Consider 'hate crimes.' I find the idea of (say) murdering someone revolting to say the least. And I certainly do understand that some are hated and sometimes murdered for characteristics such as race and sexual orientation. But the elements of hate crime laws are subjective at best, can be interpreted in ways that are byzantine and contrary to the spirit of the original law, and the enforcement spotty. Might it not be more logical simply to have the sentence enhancements that (say) come with a hate crime murder on ANY murder? Is not murder a heinous crime, and mal per se?
Please, I don't want a flame war ... do not take me as saying 'hate crime laws are bad!' But what I AM saying is that in my opinion, as a nation, we have lost our way as Americans. We used to be a nation of people who valued our freedom to live our lives as we saw fit. Yes, we had and have horrible things like the KKK and other such organizations, and yes, we had, and have, discrimination. As a society we have been working through this. But we've reached the point where everyone acts as though they are made of glass and that it is the job of the state to protect them from every difficulty, legal, economic, psychological, and spiritual.
Whatever happened to having a system of laws that were designed to protect liberty rather than simply force OTHER people to do stuff? Everyone says "there ought to be a law" that will, of course, apply to EVERYONE ELSE but not to him. (DUI laws, gun control laws, evironmental regulation, etc.)
I think that, in general, as a nation we have to grow up. I don't blare loud rock music at 2am because I think that it is inconsiderate to my neighbors who are trying to sleep. I expect and receive the same courtesy from them. Whatever happened to some degree of understanding that other people exist in the world? When did we get to be such a self absorbed society that we bored on the sociopathic and believe that freedom is a bad thing and that everyone should be tracked, monitored, controlled?
To me, THAT is what both the major parties stand for. That is why they are unAmerican and must go. (I know Panthera will disagree with me on that one, but we will simply have to disagree).
Hunter
58limited
Well-known member
Microchips in pets
I just read the article and I absolutely cannot conclude from it that there is "a big problem" with microchips in animals, especially dogs and cats. I'm a veterinarian and have neither seen nor heard of this phenomenon in pets. Keep in mind that the wording of an article can skew perceptions and conclusions. Lets look at a few quotes from the article:
"...the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous "sarcomas" _ malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants."
"Sometimes" and "most" are the key words. "Sometimes" also means infrequently. The various studies found rates between less than 1% up to 10% - ten percent is high, but it was the study with the fewest mice. Lab mice are bred with different genetic characteristics and some lines are very cancer prone. "Most" tells me that not all of the tumors were found to be associated with microchips.
"...none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips, the normal rate of tumors cannot be determined and compared to the rate with chips implanted."
In science, especially medical research, if you do not have a control group to compare with the test group, you do NOT have valid research. You have garbage.
"It's much easier to cause cancer in mice than it is in people. So it may be that what you're seeing in mice represents an exaggerated phenomenon..."
This is basically true. As mentioned above, lab mice and rats (and laboratory dogs and many other lab animals for that matter) are selectively bred with certain genetic characteristics, or a lack of certain genetic characteristics. These can be weaker immune systems, inability to produce a vitamin that normal animals can synthesize, or albinism to name a few. There are many lines to choose from. Also, pet mice and rats often develop tumors - most are not taken to a vet (owners don't want to spend money on a $2-$10 pet). I have been told by a pet store owner who is friends with some of my staff that cancer is pretty common in them. There is a lot of inbreeding in the pet animals and in the laboratory animals.
The tumors associated with microchips have basically only been found in laboratory rats and mice. The article only cites two cases of dogs that developed a tumor at the site of implantation. One was thought to be caused by the microchip, the cause of the other tumor was not confirmed. No cats were identified as having tumors associated with microchips. Keep in mind that millions and millions of dogs and cats have been implanted with microchips in the last 15 years. And I never trust news media sources for my science info.
I just read the article and I absolutely cannot conclude from it that there is "a big problem" with microchips in animals, especially dogs and cats. I'm a veterinarian and have neither seen nor heard of this phenomenon in pets. Keep in mind that the wording of an article can skew perceptions and conclusions. Lets look at a few quotes from the article:
"...the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous "sarcomas" _ malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants."
"Sometimes" and "most" are the key words. "Sometimes" also means infrequently. The various studies found rates between less than 1% up to 10% - ten percent is high, but it was the study with the fewest mice. Lab mice are bred with different genetic characteristics and some lines are very cancer prone. "Most" tells me that not all of the tumors were found to be associated with microchips.
"...none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips, the normal rate of tumors cannot be determined and compared to the rate with chips implanted."
In science, especially medical research, if you do not have a control group to compare with the test group, you do NOT have valid research. You have garbage.
"It's much easier to cause cancer in mice than it is in people. So it may be that what you're seeing in mice represents an exaggerated phenomenon..."
This is basically true. As mentioned above, lab mice and rats (and laboratory dogs and many other lab animals for that matter) are selectively bred with certain genetic characteristics, or a lack of certain genetic characteristics. These can be weaker immune systems, inability to produce a vitamin that normal animals can synthesize, or albinism to name a few. There are many lines to choose from. Also, pet mice and rats often develop tumors - most are not taken to a vet (owners don't want to spend money on a $2-$10 pet). I have been told by a pet store owner who is friends with some of my staff that cancer is pretty common in them. There is a lot of inbreeding in the pet animals and in the laboratory animals.
The tumors associated with microchips have basically only been found in laboratory rats and mice. The article only cites two cases of dogs that developed a tumor at the site of implantation. One was thought to be caused by the microchip, the cause of the other tumor was not confirmed. No cats were identified as having tumors associated with microchips. Keep in mind that millions and millions of dogs and cats have been implanted with microchips in the last 15 years. And I never trust news media sources for my science info.
My politics
are driven by which party is the least threat to my civil rights and human status.
Last week, the Gauleiterin from Arizona stripped us of the few rights we did enjoy. Ditto Virginia, and anybody who thinks the Gauleiter Ost walked that back doesn't know the difference between an executive order and a statement.
The shrub dictatorship almost succeeded in packing the Supreme Court with Justices who would permit us to be declared second-class humans for ever.
The position of the Democrats towards us is: Give them just enough to keep them voting for us and don't be nasty to them between elections.
It's an abusive, passive-aggressive, sick relationship.
Beats the hell out of a party whose express platform is a constitutional amendment to restore the 3rd Reich towards gays and women.
And that's political reality.
It's not a choice between perfect and good. It's a choice between evil and disdain.[this post was last edited: 5/2/2010-01:49]
are driven by which party is the least threat to my civil rights and human status.
Last week, the Gauleiterin from Arizona stripped us of the few rights we did enjoy. Ditto Virginia, and anybody who thinks the Gauleiter Ost walked that back doesn't know the difference between an executive order and a statement.
The shrub dictatorship almost succeeded in packing the Supreme Court with Justices who would permit us to be declared second-class humans for ever.
The position of the Democrats towards us is: Give them just enough to keep them voting for us and don't be nasty to them between elections.
It's an abusive, passive-aggressive, sick relationship.
Beats the hell out of a party whose express platform is a constitutional amendment to restore the 3rd Reich towards gays and women.
And that's political reality.
It's not a choice between perfect and good. It's a choice between evil and disdain.[this post was last edited: 5/2/2010-01:49]
lordkenmore
Well-known member
"It's not a choice between perfect and good. It's a choice between evil and disdain."
I'm not sure I'd put it this way--at least, for my particular pattern of voting. I try to look at a broad picture. Civil rights ARE important, but it's only one (although important) issue.
Unfortunately, so far as I can tell, the Republican party has nothing--absolutely nothing--to offer anyone except big business and fundamentalist Christians. That leaves me a choice between the Democrats--which have, as a group, their own problems--and candidates who have no hope of winning. So, it comes down to Unacceptable Vs. (Potentially) Horribly Flawed Vs. Won't Ever Win
I know I'm horribly naive, but I keep wishing we had more political parties. That is, VIABLE political parties--ones who might actually get someone elected. Those parties that we never hear about, except during election years, and who have never had a single candidate elected to office, don't count.[this post was last edited: 5/2/2010-03:07]
I'm not sure I'd put it this way--at least, for my particular pattern of voting. I try to look at a broad picture. Civil rights ARE important, but it's only one (although important) issue.
Unfortunately, so far as I can tell, the Republican party has nothing--absolutely nothing--to offer anyone except big business and fundamentalist Christians. That leaves me a choice between the Democrats--which have, as a group, their own problems--and candidates who have no hope of winning. So, it comes down to Unacceptable Vs. (Potentially) Horribly Flawed Vs. Won't Ever Win
I know I'm horribly naive, but I keep wishing we had more political parties. That is, VIABLE political parties--ones who might actually get someone elected. Those parties that we never hear about, except during election years, and who have never had a single candidate elected to office, don't count.[this post was last edited: 5/2/2010-03:07]
John,
Valid point about the rethuglicans, unfortunately.
I think the situation reflects the polarization in the general population. It's very hard to find people willing to accept that elections do have consequences - the tea-baggers may not all be racists, but their primary motivation is definitely racial resentment.[this post was last edited: 5/2/2010-06:35]
Valid point about the rethuglicans, unfortunately.
I think the situation reflects the polarization in the general population. It's very hard to find people willing to accept that elections do have consequences - the tea-baggers may not all be racists, but their primary motivation is definitely racial resentment.[this post was last edited: 5/2/2010-06:35]
Let's all embrace our stupidity. It amazes me still,
..that after all of the obscenities of the eight Bush/Cheney years that resulted in the ruination of this country, Republican @sswipes still have the tits to even open their mouths.
Wake up, read a newspaper, learn some recent history, take a pill do whatever you have to do to realize that you weren't just attacked by fanatical Muslims, you were mostly attacked by ultra-conservative revolutionaries, who gave big business the rights and abilities to steal your savings and futures from you. Who used(and probably anticipated) the events of 9-11 as an excuse to send your children to the Middle East to be killed and maimed so all those lovely rich white guys could walk away from their jobs that much richer. Stop being stupid.
You might want to read a book by Daniel Yergin titled, "The Prize". You just might learn something. And stop crying in your soup.
..that after all of the obscenities of the eight Bush/Cheney years that resulted in the ruination of this country, Republican @sswipes still have the tits to even open their mouths.
Wake up, read a newspaper, learn some recent history, take a pill do whatever you have to do to realize that you weren't just attacked by fanatical Muslims, you were mostly attacked by ultra-conservative revolutionaries, who gave big business the rights and abilities to steal your savings and futures from you. Who used(and probably anticipated) the events of 9-11 as an excuse to send your children to the Middle East to be killed and maimed so all those lovely rich white guys could walk away from their jobs that much richer. Stop being stupid.
You might want to read a book by Daniel Yergin titled, "The Prize". You just might learn something. And stop crying in your soup.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
A few thoughts about US elections...
With elections, many people definitely don't see that there is a price to pay. Some even say the system will cancel out almost anything, and it really doesn't matter who gets elected. That theory (which I never believed) got disproved pretty nicely during the Bush years.
I see some very real election problems in modern America. They seem incredibly obvious to me. They are:
-People who simply don't care. The country can come caving in around them, but as long as their favorite TV program continues to air on schedule, they are happy. These people tend to be the people who don't bother voting.
-People who vote, making decisions based entirely on candidate charisma. There are many people who voted for Reagan--even voted BOTH times he ran--even though they hated his politics, but just loved his charisma.
-People who are capable of making intelligent decisions, but have gotten so frustrated/burned out they really don't care any more.
-Then, of course, you have the extremists who vote hoping to jam their particular views down everyone else's throat. The worst offenders here tend to be fundamentalist Christians. (Too be fair, liberals could be as bad--I could see some "green" types wanting to outlaw vintage washing machines, and voting accordingly. But, right now, it seems like extremist conservatives are a bigger problem. In part, because we haven't recovered from the Bush years.)
With the influence of the above groups, it's no wonder some hopelessly lousy candidates have been elected. (Although, I will at least admit I can understand the "burn out" problem. I feel that way, too, but I also feel I have to vote and make the best choice I can...even if it means the best candidate is simply the one least likely to destroy things too much before his/her successor can be elected in 2-6 years!)
With elections, many people definitely don't see that there is a price to pay. Some even say the system will cancel out almost anything, and it really doesn't matter who gets elected. That theory (which I never believed) got disproved pretty nicely during the Bush years.
I see some very real election problems in modern America. They seem incredibly obvious to me. They are:
-People who simply don't care. The country can come caving in around them, but as long as their favorite TV program continues to air on schedule, they are happy. These people tend to be the people who don't bother voting.
-People who vote, making decisions based entirely on candidate charisma. There are many people who voted for Reagan--even voted BOTH times he ran--even though they hated his politics, but just loved his charisma.
-People who are capable of making intelligent decisions, but have gotten so frustrated/burned out they really don't care any more.
-Then, of course, you have the extremists who vote hoping to jam their particular views down everyone else's throat. The worst offenders here tend to be fundamentalist Christians. (Too be fair, liberals could be as bad--I could see some "green" types wanting to outlaw vintage washing machines, and voting accordingly. But, right now, it seems like extremist conservatives are a bigger problem. In part, because we haven't recovered from the Bush years.)
With the influence of the above groups, it's no wonder some hopelessly lousy candidates have been elected. (Although, I will at least admit I can understand the "burn out" problem. I feel that way, too, but I also feel I have to vote and make the best choice I can...even if it means the best candidate is simply the one least likely to destroy things too much before his/her successor can be elected in 2-6 years!)
I don't recall
ever in my entire life voting FOR someone, just AGAINST someone even worse.
And that's just the way it is. Anybody who thinks they're qualified for public office is by definition not qualified.
Right now, realistically, we have three choices: The Party of the Eternally Urgent Whenever, also called the Democrats. Fascists, also called tea-baggers or christianist Rethuglicans.
Yee-haw.
In the end, the christianists want to force us constitutionally into permanent second-class citizenship. The tea-baggers over the last two weeks have come out of their closet and made very clear that, yes, they hate us, too.
All that is left is our passive-aggressive, abusive relationship with the Democrats. They hate needing us, we hate that they are the only non-totally-insane politicians.
ever in my entire life voting FOR someone, just AGAINST someone even worse.
And that's just the way it is. Anybody who thinks they're qualified for public office is by definition not qualified.
Right now, realistically, we have three choices: The Party of the Eternally Urgent Whenever, also called the Democrats. Fascists, also called tea-baggers or christianist Rethuglicans.
Yee-haw.
In the end, the christianists want to force us constitutionally into permanent second-class citizenship. The tea-baggers over the last two weeks have come out of their closet and made very clear that, yes, they hate us, too.
All that is left is our passive-aggressive, abusive relationship with the Democrats. They hate needing us, we hate that they are the only non-totally-insane politicians.
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
Amen to that Keven....amen to that.
The Prize
Steve R. turned me on to this book a few years ago. Fantastic eye-opening book. Yergin should have earned a Nobel for that one, although with the obvious disdain if not outright hostility toward intellectual thought, reasoning and science by the right in this country it would make little difference.
Lifelong Republicans (my mother for one) have been saying for nearly a decade now that today's Republican party looks nothing like the party of the "old days." It has taken a dramatic shift to the far right, leaving behind its very soul.
I heard an interesting interview the other day about the far-right christian ejacumaniacal movement in this country. It seems to be shrinking and losing a much of the power that it had gained under Reagan and W. Newsweek published an article just two weeks ago on this same subject. I hope this is the death-rattle of this phenomenon and that superstition, racism and vigilante politics will be shed from the American political landscape once and for all, or at least be marginalized to a lint-on-the-fringe teabagger few.
www.newsweek.com
Steve R. turned me on to this book a few years ago. Fantastic eye-opening book. Yergin should have earned a Nobel for that one, although with the obvious disdain if not outright hostility toward intellectual thought, reasoning and science by the right in this country it would make little difference.
Lifelong Republicans (my mother for one) have been saying for nearly a decade now that today's Republican party looks nothing like the party of the "old days." It has taken a dramatic shift to the far right, leaving behind its very soul.
I heard an interesting interview the other day about the far-right christian ejacumaniacal movement in this country. It seems to be shrinking and losing a much of the power that it had gained under Reagan and W. Newsweek published an article just two weeks ago on this same subject. I hope this is the death-rattle of this phenomenon and that superstition, racism and vigilante politics will be shed from the American political landscape once and for all, or at least be marginalized to a lint-on-the-fringe teabagger few.
Meacham: The End of Christian America
The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades. How that statistic explains who we are now—and what, as a nation, we are about to become.
www.newsweek.com
Greg,
Your word in God's ear.
But I rather doubt it. We still have no civil rights and no human status in the US. We are the only group it is still legal to fire because of being gay. We are the only group left the christianists can beat up on.
They are mortally wounded, yes, I think so, too. But their death-throes will last for quite a while.
If we lose the house and senate this November (when we lose) that will be all she wrote for us. No ENDA, no rescinding DADT, no getting rid of DOMA, no nothing. Nada.
Your word in God's ear.
But I rather doubt it. We still have no civil rights and no human status in the US. We are the only group it is still legal to fire because of being gay. We are the only group left the christianists can beat up on.
They are mortally wounded, yes, I think so, too. But their death-throes will last for quite a while.
If we lose the house and senate this November (when we lose) that will be all she wrote for us. No ENDA, no rescinding DADT, no getting rid of DOMA, no nothing. Nada.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
"I don't recall ever in my entire life voting FOR someone, just AGAINST someone even worse."
That sounds like W. C. Fields's line.
Despite my cynicism here, I have been able to vote for people I can believe in. Not as many as I'd like, alas, but at least a few.
The problem is--for the most part--the good people tend to run for "lower" offices, like state legislature. The higher the office, the less likely it is that any candidate will be anything more than "the best we can do."
That sounds like W. C. Fields's line.
Despite my cynicism here, I have been able to vote for people I can believe in. Not as many as I'd like, alas, but at least a few.
The problem is--for the most part--the good people tend to run for "lower" offices, like state legislature. The higher the office, the less likely it is that any candidate will be anything more than "the best we can do."
