Printable View
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/....ap/index.html
Thank god flag burning amnedment and the marrige amendment. O happy day. Screw the economy. Screw illegals. Screw outsourcing. America turns ablind eye yet agian to the real issuses. I cant wait boys we may declare bakrupcy but by god our "morals" will be there granted we will gain these illegaly and it will completly go agianst the enlightenment princples we founded this nation on but hey small price right?
While you and I might differ on which side we take on some of the political issues you mentioned, I cheer your post.~:thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The Republicans are playing an old card. Let's hope the public has wised up since the last presidential election.
"Values under attack" indeed! There won't be a US, let alone American values, if we don't start fixing the real ills this country faces.
For how many people whine about our government, they sure have a peculiar love for it...
Gah! If I dont whine they dont get any better. We will just become a little more blind and fat until we collapse under our collective weghit. Its a sad day when the "war on Christmas" gets more press then the economy or Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Absolutely right, why is that crap about Christmas even news?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I'd be very grateful if some of you would express your views on how powerful a force the religious right is in US politics.
It seems to me that they are a small but very influential group that has managed to convince the GOP that it has no chance without them. But is this true? On the whole, the American people seem to be quite distanced from most of the agenda this group promotes.
When the Democrat party appears to be in constant confusion mode, why does the evangelical right even matter to the Republican party?
I'm genuinely interested. :inquisitive:
Gee, wonder who they're pandering to this time? Religon is NOT supposed to be the basis of our laws.Quote:
that will go a long way toward energizing the values voters at the base of the Republican Party,
Outlaw flag burning? This is jacked 100%. Although I haven't burn't any flags except to honorably dispose of them the freedom to express distaste for the govenment by burning flags has always been and shouldn't be made illegal. First it's this then it'll be the banning of protests all together.Quote:
The House has approved an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw flag burning and passed a bill to crack down on the practice of minors' crossing state lines for abortions to evade legal limits in their own states
One of the things I love about the US is the ability to move to different states to do things illegal in other states. If a minor can legally get an abortion in state X then by all means let them. Most people can't afford to change their residence purely for something like an abortion.
And although I don't find anything appealing about homosexual relationships I believe that they should be able to marry each other or have some sort of legal union equal to marriage.
I hope the midterm elections take away the GOP supremacy in Congress. The system of checks and balances doesn't work when the three branches are all puppets on the same hand.
The Republican party has been like this since Reagan. I'm an avid supporter of the seperation of church and state and the Republicans seem to not understand that they are constantly trying to violate this principle. I don't want to live in the Christian version of Iran's system of Islamic Republicism.Quote:
I'd be very grateful if some of you would express your views on how powerful a force the religious right is in US politics.
It seems to me that they are a small but very influential group that has managed to convince the GOP that it has no chance without them. But is this true? On the whole, the American people seem to be quite distanced from most of the agenda this group promotes.
When the Democrat party appears to be in constant confusion mode, why does the evangelical right even matter to the Republican party?
I'm genuinely interested.
Wasn't Bush a proponent of stem cell research at first?Quote:
Social conservatives, including Bush, say that the process by which the cells are derived is morally akin to abortion because the fertilized egg is destroyed.
Because of a perceived threat to our country since 2001, it has been easy to manipulate the US public through fear, and religious belief is promoted as the antidote to this fear. The Republicans say that the very values of American life are under attack. These include, for many people, Christianity and everything they associate with it, like families and moral behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
So, now being religious is a fad. Like all fads, it will fade. But, until then, the Republican government will push as many far-right religious bills through Congress as possible while they have the popular support.
And realize that there are some parts of the US, especially the South and interior agricultural areas, that are particularly religious and patriotic, and they combine the two. This has generally always been true.
Flag burning amendment attempts pop up every 6 years or so around election time, its nothing but pomp. Won't pass, will never pass, and the only people who really support it are either complete morons with mullets or 80 year old veterans. It's purely a tool for congess members to say "look what I tried to do" and its designed to fail, just like congressional investigations into things like sports steroids, Waco and campaign finance.
I think the influence of the 'religious right' is somewhat exaggerated. Most Americans, after all, are against gay marriage, and this opposition is not from a vocal minority of the 'religious far right' as some say. And for all the talk of how the GOP is pushing 'far right religious bills', how many such bills have actually been passed?
I will admit that the GOP is trying to appeal more to religious people, and the greater push for an anti-gay marriage amendment reflects that. But it also stems, as I said before, from an opposition from more than 'the religious far right'.
Religion dictates morals, and morals form the basis of our laws.Quote:
Religon is NOT supposed to be the basis of our laws.
I will agree that this recent legislation push is pandering to the base. It's just so the politicians can avoid doing actual work on issues like immigration, social security, etc. And this is supposed to convince me to vote for them how?
Crazed Rabbit
MRD is right that any number of these bills are simple political showmanship -- note how few deals are made to actually pass some of them into law.
The comment about the GOP wandering since Reagan is a bit exaggerated -- but only a bit. There is too much truth in that for me to be comfortable.
I really believe that the family-oriented base is hurting the GOP the most out of everything. Mainly because many of their issues have been highly-publicized (such as T. Schiavo, stem cells, etc) and that several of their high-powered members (such as DeLay and Frist) have been involved in major scandals. Not to mention Pat Robertson's badly-timed comments.
As far as the Religious Right always threatening the GOP leaders- I don't really think it has teeth. If they break from the Republican Party it will Ross Perot all over again and the Democrats will end up on top.
My comment was not directed at any one on this board, rather it was directed at the nutters who 'go off' about the Federal government, and then turn around and start worshipping the American flag.
Haruchai,
Crazed Rabbit is right. For all the talk about the 'Religious Right', it's a red herring.
The 'Religious Right' has had Congress and the White House 'hijacked' for the past 6 years (or so the Time/Newsweek editorials would have you believe). You tell me how effective the so-called 'well oiled political machine that is the Religious Right' is.
Their 3 biggest issues are gay marriage, abortion and prayer in schools. In the past 6 years:
-Gay marriage has become a reality in Vermont, Massachussets, California and several municipalities.
-Just as it was throughout the 'wicked excesses of the Clinton years', abortions are safe, legal, and: allowed through the 39th week; subsidized by taxpayers; can be performed for gender selection (I don't think anybody except China and India are with us there); can be performed on minors (as young as age 12) without informing the minor's parents.
-Prayer in schools has made no inroads in the past 6 years. Much like the abortion issue, the status quo is where it was back in January of 2001.
So, for all you folks out there that are constantly bemoaning the oppressive Christian fundamentalism that has sprung up in the US, just ask yourself... what have the bible-thumpers gotten out of Washington that they wanted?
Follow the money. It's an election year and each party is going to pander to their major funding sources.
Skimming through I saw a line saying that religion shouldn't be a basis for our laws. Garbage! Law is religion codified. Judeo-Christian philosophy (and religion) is the basis of our society. The conflict exists when religion becomes law; that's quite different.
Exaaactly! This is why I cannot for my life figure out who is still supporting the BA! I'm much more of a fiscal conservative who leans towards more of the right's ideas on foreign policy. He disgusts me when it comes to spending. For those folks who care about family values and so on, what the hell are they doing still standing behind these guys?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
What conservative platform is held by his remaining supporters?
Anyway, if those issues mentioned above are what the GOP is buckling down for this cycle, I'll be staying home or writing in Mickey Mouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
:director: Mickey Mouse! Zero-eight! Mickey Mouse! Zero-eight! Mickey Mouse! Zero-eight! :director:
Well, I'm seriously considering doing the unthinkable and voting Democrat this election. Go back and re-read the Contract with America. Then go around and count up how many House Republicans signed that pledge and then went back on their word: spending increases, didn't follow self-imposed term limits, accepting graft from corporate interests...
Does it really matter anymore? Actually, voting Democrat is just as bad. I'm going to take my ballot home, tack it to my dartboard, and let random chance work it's magic.
Hmm, does it seem like I'm spamming?
You're missing the point (oops, sorry I haven’t made it yet). If solidly red districts suddenly become blue for one election politicians will listen. Think about it, you can survive two years of someone you don't like. If you shake up the party, any party, they're going to want to know why. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the opposition candidate you vote for or not. If your Representative is being a bum, throw him out on his bum.Quote:
Does it really matter anymore? Actually, voting Democrat is just as bad. I'm going to take my ballot home, tack it to my dartboard, and let random chance work it's magic.
If you kick out the ruling party from areas they thought were secure you'll send the fear of God into them. Chances are that the district will revert to their old colors after that but newly elected officials will pay much closer attention to the issues that created the upset in the past.
The beauty of it is that it will send shockwaves through out the entire political structure making all levels of elected government straighten up. There's too much "job security" in politics.
Thank you, Don and Rabbit, for explaining. I felt sure from reading between the lines that they had less impact than the press over here seems to credit them with. Still wish the GOP would repudiate them though - where are the Religious Right going to go - vote Ralph Nader?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Funny thing is, despite the wailing and fuss, the US constitution has foiled (so far) the attempts to teach creationism in schools. But in the UK, where there is no constitutional protection, Blair's 'City Academies" have led to an evangelical millionaire sponsoring a few northern schools and having creationism put firmly on the curriculum.
And don't even get me started on the still pervasive influence of the Catholic church in my own country. :furious3:
The Roman Catholic Church is very active in American politics as well. Speaking as a former Catholic, I'm amazed they get away with some of what they do:
-They tell parishoners who to vote for
-They tell parishoners what they must think on certain issues
-They donate to political campaigns
-They openly violate the law and never get called on it (Cardinal Law broke about 30 laws moving Fathers Sheehan and Geoghan and others around Boston, then lied to investegators). If the Catholic Church didn't wield as much power as they do over here, they'd be facing charges under RICO statues (anti-racqueteering).
I'm not anti-Catholic in terms of the faith, or the believers. But the way American bishops act..... Well, let's just say they remind me a lot of the Sopranos. Cardinal Law threatened 3 different victims in the Boston area with excommunication if they agreed to talk to police!!!! Cardinal Ratzenberger, now Pope Benedict, called him to the Vatican and gave him a promotion!!!
Replying as a current -- albeit imperfect -- Catholic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The church (at least in my diocese) does not tell parishoners who to vote for or what they must think. The local prelates do, quite openly, assert what the church's position is on certain issues and how specific votes would reflect or contradict that viewpoint. No public or private sanctions, no quizzing of parishoners in the confessional, occurs. I acknowledge that different diocesean leaders may take a different approach, so I cannot assert that I speak for all in this.
Donating to political campaigns would not be inappropriate -- providing that the church was clear that it would be making such contributions -- since I feel that the church has as much a right as any to support/lobby for its positions.
Cardinal Law, I suspect, did step beyond the bounds of the law with his efforts to hush a scandal. Mother Church has taken it on the chin with such cover-up efforts (and not just in Boston). I am glad that the Church has changed its stance on this (though I regret that too many did not do right in the past). Why civilian authorities did not pursue criminal behaviors more assiduously is surprising. It's clear that a number of church hierarchs were involved in what amounted to obstruction of justice if not aiding and abetting.
Seamus, I'm not attacking your faith, your dogma, your co-practioners or even, for the most part, your priests. My issues lie squarely with those at the diosecan leadership level and above.
You've got the Cardinal of Los Angeles, Roger Mahoney coming out this week and telling Catholics they must disobey their government and help illegal immigrants break the law and drain wealth out of the social services budgets.
I actually have on several occassions received letters from the diosecan offices for Norwich, CT; Providence, RI and Charlotte NC telling me who they considered to be the only candidate of choice for Catholics of conscience (sorry for the alliteration). I still get them, along with Bishop's appeals, even though I formally quit 4 years ago!
I'm not saying the Catholic Church is alone in this. I think every body of organization, of any flavor, informs its members which way the official stance is leading, from ACT-UP to the American Legion. My point wasn't that the RCC was unique in this, but that they are incredibly active politically.
As for 'opening the books' on the abuse coverup... they allowed a self-appointed panel to review documents they themselves chose to make available. After two years of their own panel reviewing the documents they chose to make available, surprise, surprise, the panel found nothing, so the American Council of Bishops is considering disbanding the review panel. Sounds more than a little fishy to me, and I think it was a white-wash of the first order.
I have nothing against the faith or the people that practice it. I have huge problems with the so-called Princes of the Church and their failure to hold themselves accountable to even their own standards.
Seamus, I'm not attacking your faith, your dogma, your co-practioners or even, for the most part, your priests. My issues lie squarely with those at the diosecan leadership level and above.
You've got the Cardinal of Los Angeles, Roger Mahoney coming out this week and telling Catholics they must disobey their government and help illegal immigrants break the law and drain wealth out of the social services budgets.
I actually have on several occassions received letters from the diosecan offices for Norwich, CT; Providence, RI and Charlotte NC telling me who they considered to be the only candidate of choice for Catholics of conscience (sorry for the alliteration). I still get them, along with Bishop's appeals, even though I formally quit 4 years ago!
I'm not saying the Catholic Church is alone in this. I think every body of organization, of any flavor, informs its members which way the official stance is leading, from ACT-UP to the American Legion. My point wasn't that the RCC was unique in this, but that they are incredibly active politically.
As for 'opening the books' on the abuse coverup... they allowed a self-appointed panel to review documents they themselves chose to make available. After two years of their own panel reviewing the documents they chose to make available, surprise, surprise, the panel found nothing, so the American Council of Bishops is considering disbanding the review panel. Sounds more than a little fishy to me, and I think it was a white-wash of the first order.
I have nothing against the faith or the people that practice it. I have huge problems with the so-called Princes of the Church and their failure to hold themselves accountable to even their own standards.
Father of Jillian:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
That was clear from the outset, and I took no offense whatsoever.
I acknowledge, with distaste, that the pedophilia coverup stuff is horrid. I think it is being handled better and more honorably than before -- but I also regret that "before" was a hideously low benchmark. I too am angered by this subject.
I am less bothered by overt political activity on the part of church leaders. If anything, Mahoney's public stance is less bothersome to me (though I too think he's wrong in calling for active law-breaking as opposed to applying political pressure to change laws) because it is public. I'm more concerned about hush-hush deals between diocesan officials and local electees (not that I have evidence of any, just that such would worry me more). A politically active church is one thing, a politically opaque one is another.
I also wanted to get out the point that such issues were not treated monolithically by the church, and that considerable variation has and is occurring.
Hope you had a joyous Easter.
Yup, they've come a long way from the party of Lincoln. Anyone here remember their PoliSci 100 class in college? The Republicans were described as historically about a balanced budget, smaller government, and less government interference in peoples lives. I am really curious as to why anyone can support a political party that does the exact opposite of everything they say (or say they want). I know the zealots do it because Bush has a hotline to Jesus but why does anyone else. They've made a mess of the war, trashed the economy, and made government more bloated and intrusive than ever before. It just doesn't make any sense.
Aside from Roosevelt and Eisenhower the GOP hasn't produced much in the way of dynamic leadership since Lincoln. Please don't say Reagan either, you'll just look foolish.
Reagan! :2thumbsup: :balloon2:
And I don't see how you could be a Democrat, either. If you think they're for "a balanced budget, smaller government, and less government interference in peoples lives" you've been misled. Or you've taken to heart the libertarian position on personal drug use.
Just thought I'd point that out. :2thumbsup:
DC - at least the RCC isn't consistantly partisan. The requirements for pro-life combined with pro-welfare (and such) and such rules out a lot of Democrats and Republicans.
At least it's not like the whole Church is in thrall of one party... :juggle2:
War:Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
Not a mess, though I agree it hasn't been "optimal" either.
Economy:
Wage slippage, but continued solid growth with low inflation and high overall employment doesn't count as trashed.
Government Bloat:
.... we really need a smiley for "whistling to avoid answering." :sweatdrop:
As to Reagan, I'll have to look foolish I guess. He had no more malf-ups than Ike and made some really important things happen.