|Question for board conservatives||OldEdScott|
May 16, 2003 5:31 AM
|If you had your way, would you prefer the hard-core Christian right just go away and be quiet? Keep voting Republican, obviously, but basically shut the hell up? Do they create problems for you as you continue working toward the Thousand Year Reich of small government and low taxes (unless you're gay or poor)?|
|...against all threats, foriegn and DOMESTIC||sn69|
May 16, 2003 6:24 AM
|The radical right is as much a threat as the KKK, the militia nut-bags, the Earth Firsters, the Right To Lifers, the Ellen Jamesians (tee hee), and anyone at the extreme fringes of our political spectrum who wish to forcibly impose their world vision on the rest of us.
They all suck, Ed. FWIW, I vote equally Repub and Dem based on invidual issues. I maintain my Repub. registration, however, so I can vote AGAINST Pat Robertson in the primaries. He's an a@@.
|Ellen Jamesians! LOL! nm||OldEdScott|
May 16, 2003 7:05 AM
|re: Question for board conservatives||BikeViking|
May 16, 2003 6:31 AM
|Yes, I wish they would...I am an agnostic and have no time for the "less government" spiel except when it comes to sex and issues of morality they deem important.
Less Federal government is better. The States are supposed to take care of all things that the Constitution doesn't specifically give the Feds. The States are now crawling to the deep-pocketed Feds for money becasue they overspent themselves when they had cash in the 90's, and now refuse to cut spending when times are tough. It's so much easier to raid the people's pocketbook than to make politically dangerous, but fiscally necessary decisions.
Don't really care for the Reich reference, unless it was meant to be inflammatory! :o)
|No! :O)||Live Steam|
May 16, 2003 6:37 AM
|I believe they act as the moral conscience of society, counterbalancing the libertine ideals of the extreme left. Unchecked, the abject acts of the extreme left would soon cast shadows of Sodom and Gomorrah.|
|re: Question for board conservatives||Alpedhuez55|
May 16, 2003 7:43 AM
|I am sure it is musch the same with the Democrats and some of the left wing. THe Democrats threw Carol Mosley Braun to try to split the black vote and lessen the impact of Al Sharpton in the primaries. Both sides have their people who hey would like to be quiet. Maybe that includes spin doctors who invoke Nazi images with statements like "Thousand Year Reich" in a weak attempt to insult Conservatives. I guess that is right next to Neo-con in the Democratic Election Handbook.
I think you hear things and and say what were they thinking, but I would not shut them up completely. Most people know that they are not mainstream Republicans. I would rather have a party with a free flow of ideas, including the Christrian Right.
That said, I think the Christian Right, due to the nature of the the convention delegate selection process. THey are better at organizing for the caucuses and tend to have a louder voice at the convention than they do within the party in general.
May 16, 2003 7:52 AM
|But only if the left-wing-tree-hugging-giveallmymoneyaway-liberals go away too.
I don't like the Christian right at all - they scare me but to give some credit to "live steam", they do work as a balance to the nuts on the left.
My feeling is this " the liberal left want to take my money and ambition, the christian right wants to take away my rights for my own good" I hate'm both. But I can always make more money, my ambition will always be there, but once your rights and freedoms are gone, they're gone forever.
If you really hate Pat Robertson and what he stands for, read this story of a visit to his little country place. Yeah, that's me..Paul...after a 65 mile ride and lookin' pretty bad. FYI: Pat's next door neighbor is George Steinbrunner. Old Pat is raping his followers IMHO Go here: http://www1.roanoke.com/outdoors/biking/7253.html
|By the way...||PaulCL|
May 16, 2003 7:56 AM
|Maybe I shouldn't have answered this question since I don't consider myself a conservative. I am a republican, but not conservative. But I had to answer because I have such an immense distaste for the Christian right.|
|yeah ... opposed to the giveallmymoneyaway attitude,||sacheson|
May 16, 2003 8:55 AM
|they hold strong on the give all your money to me attitude.|
|no; they balance left creeps||DougSloan|
May 16, 2003 8:13 AM
|First of all, I think everyone is entitled to a voice, including so called "hard core Christian right." I'm not at all sure what that is, anyway. Does it include Catholics? Are we talking solely about Pat Robertson and company?
I resent Conservatives being linked to the "Reich" as much as you do communist, maybe even more. Aside from being ridiculously wrong in the analogy, it's insulting to be linked to a government that systematically murdered millions of people, and further insulting to Jewish people who survived the Holocost.
While I absolutely do not agree with certain beliefs or goals of the "Christian Right," as they are a bit too evangelical and controlling for my tastes, for the most part they are good, honest, loving, well-intentioned people. To cast them as Nazis is pure political character assassination.
In an ideal world, I suppose I'd prefer there exist only people who agree with me politically 100%. Gee, wouldn't that be nice?
Equally, do Liberals resent having factions on their side who arrogantly believe they know what is best for every human being on earth and want to control every facet of our lives, knowing that they are enlighted and all else are dumb cattle? I'd sure as heck be embarrassed by them. They are anti-freedom, anti-liberty, in every sense of the words, except as they define them, of course.
|Chill dude. The reference was to||OldEdScott|
May 16, 2003 8:29 AM
|an old Hunter Thompson quote, I never used the word Nazi, and I only used the reference here among people who know me well enough to know that I don't call people Nazis, unless they're members of the Nazi Party. Fascists, yes. Nazis, no.
Besides, a Thousand Year Reich of small governemnt and low taxes isn't a bad thing, is it? It wasn't a Thousand Year Reich of mass muder.
It's not like I went off the deep end and accused the President of complicity in the murders of 21 people or anything ...
If it's so offensive to you, delete the focking thing. You're the moderator here.
|See me staying out of this? I'm so proud of myself. (nm)||cory|
May 16, 2003 8:33 AM
May 16, 2003 8:33 AM
|The "Thousand Year Reich" is an explicit reference to Hitler and the Nazis, isn't it? If not explicit, it's about as strong an implication as you can get.
No, not my job as moderator to delete stupid comments. We are all free to express whatever stupid thing we want to.
|Well, we 'left creeps' (I'm assuming you've||OldEdScott|
May 16, 2003 8:47 AM
|called me a creep, but I'm FINE with it, you don't have to delete that personal attack)tend to appear stupid to humorless people. Granted. Expected. Yawn.|
|I knew you'd see the humor in that ;-) nm||DougSloan|
May 16, 2003 9:10 AM
|Anti-American creeps like me see humor||OldEdScott|
May 16, 2003 9:15 AM
|in the unlikeliest of places!|
|just doing my part||DougSloan|
May 16, 2003 9:24 AM
|It's fairly obvious you wanted to get a good flame war going. Just doing my part. "Extremism..."
Besides, I know you can take a few good-natured jabs now and then. If you couldn't, you never would have initiated this thread.
|Got a new and even better good one going above! Check it out!||OldEdScott|
May 16, 2003 9:27 AM
|sure; glad to help (Cory can't stay away from that one, I bet) n||DougSloan|
May 16, 2003 9:29 AM
|I'm assuming that part of your commentary is a response to||Kristin|
May 16, 2003 8:29 AM
|my post below in which I stated that my bosses thinking is somewhat reminiscent of WWII Germany. I will stand by my statement. Here's why. My boss is not, "for the most part...a good, honest, loving, well-intentioned [person]." He thinks he is right about absolutely everything that he believes to the point that he directly rejects the opinions and thoughts of others when they contradict his own. I have never seen any hint that he has an open mind. I also have never seen him do anything close to introspection. He sets himself as the standard and holds everyone else to it. Without realizing it, he really asserts himself as if he were God. I could draw some similarities between himself and Hitler and even Osama. Both of these men--to the extreme--believe(d) that everything they do and say is correct. They never stop(ed) to question their own ideas with an open mind. I think the comparison is valid. It doesn't mean my boss, or any other member of the conservative far right, is going to kill countless people or that their terrible monsters. But similarities are plain. Thankfully our government makes it difficult for someone to perpetrate the crimes of Hitler and Osama. There have already been some VERY dangerous people in power here.|
|didn't read it||DougSloan|
May 16, 2003 8:38 AM
|Didn't read your post, and if I did, I forgot it and my comments were only responding to Ed's.
Nonetheless, does you boss believe that killing people is ok? Would he authorize killing every human being on earth who does not agree with him or is of his same race and religious beliefs? Being a closed-minded authoritarian is one thing, being a mass-murderer is a bit different, don't you think?
What many people don't see is that many liberals as just as authoritarian as the "right wingers" when it comes to acheiving their vision of the world. It's ok, though, because their beliefs are not based in religion, but rather power for the pure sake of power.
|I think it only takes||Kristin|
May 16, 2003 8:46 AM
|The right blend of environmental and social influences to turn a closed-minded authroitarian into a mass-murderer. (The conditions are not condusive to this in the US.) And I agree with you, authoritarian is bad if you are anyone except God himself. (Thinking you are God does not count!)|
May 16, 2003 9:07 AM
|The leap from closed-minded authoritarian to mass-murderer is not a matter of degree, but an entire and totally different world view. The Pope could well be described as a "closed-minded authoritarian." Do you think he'd ever murder millions of people?
There are equivalent closed-minded authoritarians on the Left. However, they'd like you to believe that they are anything but. Everything they want is "good for you." They want to tell you what you can drive, what you can eat, what wages you earn, what you must learn in school, etc. When you call them on their evident lack of support for true liberty and freedom, they are deeply offended and violently disagree -- for they are well-intentioned. Control is control, whether motivated by religion or altruism. Loss of freedom is loss of freedom. Period. It is not ok for someone to support my freedom of speech and but not my freedom to do most all life's activities.
To me, to deny people freedom and individual liberty is Anti-American. There, I said it. That's what this country was founded upon and has been the guiding principle for it's entire existence. Life means nothing without it. It includes freedom in all forms, not just those you want me to have or the way you want me to have it. Denying small freedoms a little at a time, "left creep," is an insidious cancer consuming this country. Before you know it, whether stemming from the right or left, you won't be able to do much of anything that has not been pre-approved and officially sanctioned. Further, I get a little ticked when some people lash out at being called Anti-American without ever understanding the basis for the statement, denial of freedoms, no matter how they feel they earned their particular immunity from criticism.
BTW, I don't think God is an authoritarian. If He were, I doubt He's put up with much of what it going on on this planet. Rather, I think He's the ultimate proponent of freedom. We are free to make our own mistakes.
Ps: I'm not angry or deeply offended at it might appear. Just another discussion.
|Do you remember the Crusades?||bnlkid|
May 16, 2003 9:17 AM
|Pope Urban II was directly and indirectly responsible for the murder of thousands of people. If villages did not believe in God they were summarily executed by his order. There is quite a bit of literature on the crusades that people should pick up and read. It will help some understand why the is so much turmoil in the middle east. Here is one link to get you started.
May 16, 2003 9:20 AM
|Seem to recall that those events occured a while back. Can't see the relevance to this discussion.
|In response to you analogy.||bnlkid|
May 16, 2003 9:25 AM
|"The leap from closed-minded authoritarian to mass-murderer is not a matter of degree, but an entire and totally different world view. The Pope could well be described as a "closed-minded authoritarian." Do you think he'd ever murder millions of people?"
Just wanted to point out that the pope is in fact capable of doing such a thing. It's not a good reference point. I know times have changed, but the status of Pope has not.
|be a little real||DougSloan|
May 16, 2003 9:32 AM
|Has any Pope in our lifetimes called for killing a single human being?
Let's not dredge up events long past to obscure today's reality.
|Events long past have created today's reality.||bnlkid|
May 16, 2003 9:38 AM
|You could argue that the Pope is indirectly responsible for abortion doctors being murdered. I am not trying to equate the past with what's happening today. I merely pointed out that even the Pope is not above murder. That's the point. Not whether it happened years ago, or days ago.|
|I can't believe you are serious||DougSloan|
May 16, 2003 9:49 AM
|The Pope, and I'm not even Catholic, is steadfastly against abortion, death penalty, war, violence of any kind, and is probably one of the most zealous peace activists on the planet. Recent Popes have almost nothing in common with the religious state popes nearly a millenium ago.
While the Crusades may well have precipitated some events of today, the recent Popes have no connection to that.
|I think you are missing my point.||bnlkid|
May 16, 2003 10:04 AM
|I agree that the current Popes have been peace activists, against abortion, death penalty, etc. What I was trying to point out, but didn't do a very good job, is that the position of Pope was not above murder. Granted this happened a millenium ago, and I am not trying to say the current Pope(as a person) is an anyway connected to those atrocities. However, the position of Pope still holds more power than many realize. If the past is forgotten, those same atrocities could happen again.|
|Somewhat off point and sketchy||128|
May 16, 2003 10:13 AM
|Isn't there a basic principle held by the Rel. Rt. supporting Zionism, so all the Jews will return to Isreal as prophesized in the Bible where they will then be conveniently assembled for elimination by the Arabs? I could be completely whacked here but I seem recall something just that whacky.|
May 16, 2003 10:51 AM
|You are almost completely whacked out here. Isaiah is used, I guess along with Daniel, for prophecies of the Jews return to the Holy Land, primarily interesting as they were written so far in advace of the Diaspora, however, there is nothing in the Bible about the Jews being eliminated by the Muslims. Rather, at some point, the idea is that war comes to and end and swords are beaten into plowshares, spears into pruning hooks, or something like that.
Related, sort of, but Islam and the Quran also have an apocalyptic view of the future where Jesus returns to lead a war against evil doers. Egad, if that happens and Jesus leads a war for Islam against evil-doers, can you imagine what the radical left street protestors will do in Europe and the U.S.? Would they have the courage to call Jesus a neo-Hitler trying to establish a thousand year reign as the new Reich?
|No offense taken. This is a good discussion.||Kristin|
May 16, 2003 9:30 AM
|Though its becoming a little think. :-)
Okay, I know what you're saying; but I still think the two are related. Authoritarianism unchecked will become cruel and damaging. Perhaps the authoritarians of today are a few steps back on the evolutionary ladder from mass murderer.
For instance, happy Germans didn't wake up one morning from their peaceful slumber, turn on their radios, hear Hitler announce a grand scheme to murder every Israeli on planet Earth and then gleefully join the Reich. Lots and lots of people were in Hitlers Army. Fewer than the total number, but still many of them, knew about and supported the genecide of Jews. How did it happen that so many people were capable of that kind of cruelness? Genetics? (Gosh I hope not, I'm 25% German.) I suspect, rather, that Hitler came to power and was followed by people who believed his BS, because society allowed for authoritarianism (totalitarianism?) to run amuck. Blend that with the corruption of power and you have a recipe for unspeakable attrocity. The average German wasn't a bad person, but the nation did very wicked things all the same.
Okay, I'm going to stop now because a)I don't have a complete grasp of what I'm trying to say, and b)you really need a doctorate in anthrapology to discuss this intelligently. Why does Psydoc never post over here? (Me thinks its because he is wise for his years. Or perhaps just sleeping.)
|Just keep firmly in mind||OldEdScott|
May 16, 2003 9:34 AM
|that you're talking with some really, seriously fixed- position idealogues here, myself included. We're not exactly mainstream thinkers. SOmewhere between Doug's narrow Third Reich authoritarianism and my Anti-American creepy cancer, you'll probably find the truth hiding, terrified, from both of us.|
|I agree to a point||DougSloan|
May 16, 2003 9:37 AM
|Fascists use killing to acheive authoritarian ends. No doubt about it. There are many authoritarians, however, who would never thing of killing people. There are many avenues to authoritarianism. Killing is the worst and most obvious.
Lest it not be obvious, I'm in no way supporting authoritarianism in ANY form. Just the opposite. What I was trying to point out throughout these discussions is that there are authoritarians all across the political spectrum, not just the "religious right."
I hope no certain degree is need to discuss anything here. I doubt many would qualify. Your insights and questions are just as valid and welcomed as anyone else's.
|See, we really do agree||Kristin|
May 16, 2003 10:13 AM
|I was never intending to say that the extreme religious right is the only group going with dangerous ideology. There are absolutist nutcases flapping thier jaws under every banner. I used a religeous right example because we were discussing that earlier and because I work for one.
By the way, so you understand my perspective, I worked for a fort.5 service company that was famous for its conservative Christian values and has seen a great decline in value over the past 4 years. Care to guess my former employer? I can honestly tell you that Jesus has left the building. Not only that, but he moved to Memphis. My experiences with this company, church and my democratic surroundings have done much to form my political character.
|See, we really do agree||DougSloan|
May 16, 2003 10:19 AM
|I think I understand. However, a few examples does not necessarily reflect upon a whole group. For all we know, there are some Liberals out there who are very good people.
|Oh, and I want to acknowledge you're point that||Kristin|
May 16, 2003 10:16 AM
|Not everyone who is authoritarian will go about killing people who disagree with them even if they had the opportunity. That is correct. But I do believe that every extremist group has at least one member who, if they rose to power, would resort to silencing opposition by some means.|
|that's why everyone should be Libertarian||DougSloan|
May 16, 2003 10:24 AM
|Libertarian philosophy does away with any authoritarianism, left or right. Go bugger a rhino if you want. Smoke yourself into a pile of ashes -- just don't ask me to pick up the tab for your treatment. Practice whatever religion or no religion any way you want. Drive a car with no airbag - woohoo!
Yes, there are nuts all over the planet who do bad things, sometimes in pursuit of their beliefs. Bad is bad. That doesn't make others with similar beliefs bad, too.
|But I don't want to be a Libarian! nm||Kristin|
May 16, 2003 10:43 AM
May 16, 2003 9:44 AM
|I was going to post a topic about what I perceive as the dichotomy of the political left. On one hand they want to be perceived as being altruistic but their methods restrict the personal freedoms that do not meet their agenda. So where is their continuity? I have always been perplexed by this. At least the RR, political right and even the neocons are for the most part, consistent - less government involved in our day to day existence, lower taxes - let the people keep what they worked for and personal responsibility/accountability. The left is all over the map - against the death penalty, but for abortion? Speak out against the war but don't speak out against me? Where's the consistency?|
|Uh Oh! Steam has a point!||bnlkid|
May 16, 2003 9:54 AM
|That's the problem with the left. It's full of free thinkers. People that aren't afraid to challenge the norm. When you have a group of free thinkers, it's hard to get them to agree on one thing.
Have to disagree with your point about death penalty and abortion. I am against the death penalty and would not CHOOSE abortion, but it should still be a choice. The right is for the death penalty and against abortion. Where is the consistency there?
|perhaps because different issues require differences||rufus|
May 16, 2003 9:56 AM
|that a consistent party line does not necessarily produce the best results, and that different issues require different viewpoints, or different solutions. there's no one-size-fits-all philosoiphy in real life.|
|Please note also Kristin||OldEdScott|
May 16, 2003 9:13 AM
|that humorlessless is one dead giveaway that you're dealing with an authoritarian.|
|oh come on now||DougSloan|
May 16, 2003 9:18 AM
|If this is in reference to me, I'll officially state that you are free to refrain from laughing at any of my intended humor.
Often, humor or lack of it, is in the eye of the beholder. I dare say that I could crack a few funnies that would offend a few people here.
Liberals can dish it out just fine, but any disagreement, good humor intended or not, is rebuked as hateful, authoritarian, humorless, attacks.
|I never dish! When did I dish? One little TINY||OldEdScott|
May 16, 2003 9:26 AM
|reference to the Th!usand Y!ar R!ich and suddenly I'm DISHING?|
|I think it only takes||Jon Billheimer|
May 16, 2003 9:16 AM
|Kristin, you're right on. And history would bear you out.
FWIW, in my opinion the most dangerous political group in America is the Religious Right. First of all, they're moral absolutists, so they really don't care what anyone else thinks. In their absolute positioning they're essentially antidemocratic but use the democratic process to take control of the levers of power. Once in power they would seek to subvert choice and pluralism and to impose their notions of right and wrong on everyone else. Falwell's psychology and tactics are no different than the Iranian ayatollahs.
Second, the Religious Right resonates with more Americans than does the extreme left. They have a readymade, sympathetic constituency, for historical and cultural reasons, in many areas of the country. In case no one has noticed for these reasons, and because they're very well organized at the constituency levels, they have succeeded at various times in the past twenty years or so in hijacking the agenda of the Republican party. The current president is heavily indebted to the religious right and some of his obvious sympathies reinforce that fact.
However, again, I agree with Kristin that because of the counterbalancing forces in American political life it would be difficult for a true nut case to take over the government and impose his agenda for too long. Long live diversity and the not-so-loyal opposition!
|a non-Repub answer ...||sacheson|
May 16, 2003 9:08 AM
|... I don't think they should go away at all. I totally agree that they counter-balance the freaks on the left. I do, however, think the ultra conservatives should quit taking money from them and imposing their value structure through legislation.
I'd also like to comment on Live Steams statement about the religious right acting as the moral conscience of society. Just because someone isn't a fanatical Christian doesn't mean they are moral-less. The distribution of moral/value lacking people is equal across the board AND is just as evident in the religous right as it is in ANY other group. Just because you preach GOD and impose your GOD into the lives of millions of people doesn't mean you are a person of morals. To think so is simply disgusting.
|"moral conscience of society"||Live Steam|
May 16, 2003 9:23 AM
|My statement wasn't meant to intimate that if you did not align yourself with those from the RR, that you were in some way immoral. I just see them as completing the checks and balances part of the equation. Their stance on certain issues such as right to life, keep things in a moral perspective. The right to choose people would like us to forget that a human life is involved. Sometimes I think that the right to choose side sees it as more of a personal vanity issue and not as the deeper issue of life and death.|
May 16, 2003 10:06 AM
|FWIW, I consider the far left, it's acolytes and auxiliaries the greatest threat to America and it's well-being, as well as having been the prime movers and excusers for any number of vast societal problems. They could vote Democrat, but basically shut the non-hell up.
I am not a Christian but I know many people that are and they are all fine people. TV evangelists appear to be fakes to me, along with groups like People for the American Way. They both have vested interests that seem intrinsically insincere. In the big picture, Christianity has been a vast counter to man's worst impulses. The hard-core left in the Democrats is the primary proponent for virtually any and every pernicious cause one could think up and worships at the altar of political correctness, along with their very own special interpretation of 'tolerance.'
'Thousand Year Reich'--humor? This is a cute ploy but fails to persuade me that this was other than an intended insult to get a rise. Thus far, all you got was a response.
The Crusaders of a thousand years ago did some bad things, just as the Muslim jihadists preceeding them did also. The problems in the Middle East today are not a result of Urban or Richard the Lionheart, but of Islamic fundamentalism (not nearly the same thing as Christian fundamentalism) reacting many times to the culture that has been created in the post WWII America and the West by the power and influence of the hard-core liberals as exhibited in television, movies, magazines, and music and then exported throughout the entire world.