IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

18 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Right Wing Megathread, ITT: RM gets to be a partisan hack with reckless abandon
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jun 12 2011, 02:44 AM
Post #1





Guests






Welcome, my fellow Serious Discussion readers. I'm starting this thread as a running documentation of all the exciting things happening in the world of right wing politics, much like the Emotions thread or the Poster Above You thread (i.e. it's intended to be a long, multi-issue thread, not that it is supposed to be not serious).

However, as this thread is being created by me it will have a...unique perspective on these happenings. So, I encourage all of you to post your own submissions and commentary, regardless of your political leanings.

Just, fair warning, in this thread, I give equal talking time to each of my schizophrenic political halves: the efficiency-driven economist (defended by my good friend Robert Solow), and the yellow-dog registered Democrat that would make Ed Schultz look bipartisan, voiced by RM.

(okay, not really on the Ed Schultz part, I can't smurfing stand that guy, but you get the point)

So anyway, I encourage you all to contribute to this ongoing political discussion, and I even encourage a counterpart thread to this one to be established by someone who wants to keep it updated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Jun 12 2011, 03:05 AM
Post #2





Guests






QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Jun 11 2011, 06:44 PM) *
However, as this thread is being created by me it will have a...unique perspective on these happenings.

We can assure that RM's unique perspective will not have to brave this thread all alone. tongue.gif

Did you have anything in particular you wanted to start it off with?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jun 12 2011, 12:44 PM
Post #3





Guests






QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Jun 11 2011, 08:05 PM) *
QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Jun 11 2011, 06:44 PM) *
However, as this thread is being created by me it will have a...unique perspective on these happenings.

We can assure that RM's unique perspective will not have to brave this thread all alone. tongue.gif

Did you have anything in particular you wanted to start it off with?


Nah, I plan on posting links to news articles every so often as issues arise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zzzptm
post Jun 12 2011, 11:27 PM
Post #4


The Fisher King
***

Group: Emeritus
Posts: 2,081
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 1



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/sarah-palin-emails

Read Sarah Palin's emails online!

I just saw one in which ExxonMobil came up... and then everything after that got redacted.

Readers can rate them and classify them. Quite fun!


--------------------
"The world could perish if people only worked on things that were easy to handle." -- Vladimir Savchenko
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jul 6 2011, 05:25 AM
Post #5





Guests






Romney failed AP Language and Composition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-...R9yH_print.html

Rather than make any effort to verify his claims (or make verifiable claims), Romney has adopted a new flip-flop proof strategy: make curiously vague attacks on your opponent! Say he has "made the economy worse," (after you've already run away from a similar statement) and that things like cap and trade (which, uh, didn't pass) have hurt our economic recovery.

ALL HAIL THE REPUBLICAN FRONT RUNNER, FOR HE CAN COMPLETE SENTENCES!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zzzptm
post Jul 6 2011, 02:46 PM
Post #6


The Fisher King
***

Group: Emeritus
Posts: 2,081
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 1



Romney and Huntsman in 2012: "A nice house and mild cider!"

Romney can raise money and he doesn't have scary eyes like Bachmann.

If Romney wins the nomination, the 21 Percenters will bolt because what's the point in getting rid of a black president when you wind up getting a Mormon one instead? They'll say something else, but that's what they'll really mean. They run an independent, split the GOP vote, Obama wins with a plurality the way Clinton did in '92.

If a different moderate wins the nomination, the 21 Percenters will bolt because what's the point in getting rid of a Communist president when you wind up getting a Socialist one instead? Again with the independent, but Obama's plurality winds up being narrower.

If Bachmann or a similar 21 Percenter-approved candidate gets the nomination, the rest of the GOP bolts and votes for Obama in a desperate effort to keep a whackjob out of the White House.

Therefore, even though the economy really sucks, we're used to it by now and Obama wins in 2012, barring some wild scandal or a more profound economic meltdown. If we can just kick the can down the road until November 2012, Big O gets his second term. Since 2013 looks like when the Eurozone *really really* tanks, Obama's got to be laughing right now.


--------------------
"The world could perish if people only worked on things that were easy to handle." -- Vladimir Savchenko
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jul 8 2011, 02:45 AM
Post #7





Guests






I'm really running out of reasons to keep carrying a U.S. passport instead of a Canadian one:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/07/the-president-rebuffed/

The radical exceptionalism shown by the Supreme Court's usual suspects never ceases to amaze, and here we are with another depressingly poor decision. And once again, if Rick Perry would remove his head from his Texas-sized smurf, he would find many more people would rather see him awaiting an illegal lethal injection than see him running for the Republican nomination.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Jul 8 2011, 07:05 AM
Post #8





Guests






Someone remind me to keep a running tally of zzzptm's predicting-the-future posts and then post links back to them when they turn out to be false.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jul 8 2011, 10:11 AM
Post #9





Guests






I'd rather be talking about real issues. Everybody knows that. Taxes, jobs, health care, law, international relations. Iowa? Not so much. Michele Bachman is the first Republican to sign onto this pledge created by the conservative group The Family Leader:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07/07/2...ould-be-banned/

You can find the full pledge text here, but let's show you some of the more interesting bits.

-One of the 14 pledges requires that the candidate reject Sharia law. While this seems sufficiently irrelevant to be a core issue, I think it really shows the way these people view this election process, and how we should view it in response. This isn't about how our courts operate, this is about spreading the belief that the Christian way, personal, familial, judicial, is the only way. Never mind that no one can ever agree on what a cohesive "Christian" reality is, because that's not what this is about. This is about a specific, pointed exclusion of people of Muslim faith because they have a difference of opinion on matters that some people find unpalatable to disagree on.

-Another asserts that homosexuality is a public safety hazard. That lifestyle causes people to live shorter lives, and makes them more likely to contract diseases. That's bigotry. More than that, it's lying. It's misrepresenting statistical evidence to serve the purpose of character assassination. It does not speak to the character of an individual, but paints everyone who makes a certain set of choices of free will are necessarily categorized in ways that are patently unrealistic. Their statement is perfectly comparable to stating that people who drive cars won't live as long because of the chances of accidents happening. Therefore, cars should be banned.

-The pledge requires the individual to “support human protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy” and to save them from “seduction into promiscuity and all forms of pornography." This places women, once again, to the second class status they face in the Bible as objects to be protected. There is no individual freedom for women, because they clearly cannot avoid "seduction into promiscuity" on their own, and must be removed from the burden of free will. It's unthinkable that in the 21st century, where women are as nearly identical to men as they can get before their employers, the law, and the state, the tide of women's rights seems to be going backwards. Unconscionable.

The Family Leader thinks it's fighting a culture war, and a war on drugs, a war on terror, and a war to preserve their lifestyle. The fact of the matter is, they, Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, the Christian Coalition, Rick Santorum, the Moral Majority, Sarah Palin, Focus on the Family, William Buckley, and all the rest are fighting a war on personal freedom. For all the free market, small government, state's rights lip service they pay, they want churches to run markets instead of governments, freedom of the Church to impose its will, and state's freedom over the freedom of the individual. They want control of education, of science, of free expression, anything else that might breathe an ounce of individualism into our humanity, and cause us to deviate from their sinless heaven on Earth. Trade small-town Christians for urban workers, and I can't tell where the ideological submission to right-wing Christian fundamentalism is any different from the adoption of far-left Communist revolution. The second coming and the dissolution of the state are both coming, everyone had better make like good, busy worker bees to get read for it!

This is not at all conservatism. It's not Republican, and it's not American. It's Christian fascism, plain and simple. Michele Bachman has thrown herself in with this lot, and I beg of anyone who reads this to not vote for that woman, or anyone else who signs onto this. This is every bit as damning as it (rightly) would have been if President Obama had sworn to support the Communist Manifesto on the campaign trail. She has gone past the point of no return: she's not just a family conscious, religious Tea Party candidate. She's Michele the Evangelist, and she wants to take creationism, moral relativism, xenophobia, and 21st century sexism to the White House at the cost of freedom.

George W. Bush took away some of your freedoms to keep you safe. Barack Obama took away some of your freedoms to give you better access to health care. The Family Leader is knocking. What do you think you might get from them when they want your rights?

This post has been edited by Research Monkey: Jul 8 2011, 10:12 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BigTS_*
post Jul 8 2011, 04:17 PM
Post #10





Guests






Did I mention that her recent anti-porn pledge has said "...slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President." Yes, this is Christian fascism (and white supremacy) indeed. But I'm not at all surprised.

And even most moderate candidates are subject to the real politic that all politicians are subjected to, and if they are working for the Republican endorsement they are going to have to cater to the bigoted, racist, homophobic, anti-welfare, anti-government doing anything unless they are bombing the smurf out of other countries-base of that Party.

This post has been edited by BigTS: Jul 8 2011, 04:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stanleytree
post Jul 8 2011, 04:32 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Nazgul
Posts: 1,478
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Jul 8 2011, 11:11 AM) *
I'd rather be talking about real issues. Everybody knows that. Taxes, jobs, health care, law, international relations. Iowa? Not so much. Michele Bachman is the first Republican to sign onto this pledge created by the conservative group The Family Leader:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07/07/2...ould-be-banned/

You can find the full pledge text here, but let's show you some of the more interesting bits.

-One of the 14 pledges requires that the candidate reject Sharia law. While this seems sufficiently irrelevant to be a core issue, I think it really shows the way these people view this election process, and how we should view it in response. This isn't about how our courts operate, this is about spreading the belief that the Christian way, personal, familial, judicial, is the only way. Never mind that no one can ever agree on what a cohesive "Christian" reality is, because that's not what this is about. This is about a specific, pointed exclusion of people of Muslim faith because they have a difference of opinion on matters that some people find unpalatable to disagree on.

-Another asserts that homosexuality is a public safety hazard. That lifestyle causes people to live shorter lives, and makes them more likely to contract diseases. That's bigotry. More than that, it's lying. It's misrepresenting statistical evidence to serve the purpose of character assassination. It does not speak to the character of an individual, but paints everyone who makes a certain set of choices of free will are necessarily categorized in ways that are patently unrealistic. Their statement is perfectly comparable to stating that people who drive cars won't live as long because of the chances of accidents happening. Therefore, cars should be banned.

-The pledge requires the individual to “support human protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy” and to save them from “seduction into promiscuity and all forms of pornography." This places women, once again, to the second class status they face in the Bible as objects to be protected. There is no individual freedom for women, because they clearly cannot avoid "seduction into promiscuity" on their own, and must be removed from the burden of free will. It's unthinkable that in the 21st century, where women are as nearly identical to men as they can get before their employers, the law, and the state, the tide of women's rights seems to be going backwards. Unconscionable.

The Family Leader thinks it's fighting a culture war, and a war on drugs, a war on terror, and a war to preserve their lifestyle. The fact of the matter is, they, Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, the Christian Coalition, Rick Santorum, the Moral Majority, Sarah Palin, Focus on the Family, William Buckley, and all the rest are fighting a war on personal freedom. For all the free market, small government, state's rights lip service they pay, they want churches to run markets instead of governments, freedom of the Church to impose its will, and state's freedom over the freedom of the individual. They want control of education, of science, of free expression, anything else that might breathe an ounce of individualism into our humanity, and cause us to deviate from their sinless heaven on Earth. Trade small-town Christians for urban workers, and I can't tell where the ideological submission to right-wing Christian fundamentalism is any different from the adoption of far-left Communist revolution. The second coming and the dissolution of the state are both coming, everyone had better make like good, busy worker bees to get read for it!

This is not at all conservatism. It's not Republican, and it's not American. It's Christian fascism, plain and simple. Michele Bachman has thrown herself in with this lot, and I beg of anyone who reads this to not vote for that woman, or anyone else who signs onto this. This is every bit as damning as it (rightly) would have been if President Obama had sworn to support the Communist Manifesto on the campaign trail. She has gone past the point of no return: she's not just a family conscious, religious Tea Party candidate. She's Michele the Evangelist, and she wants to take creationism, moral relativism, xenophobia, and 21st century sexism to the White House at the cost of freedom.

George W. Bush took away some of your freedoms to keep you safe. Barack Obama took away some of your freedoms to give you better access to health care. The Family Leader is knocking. What do you think you might get from them when they want your rights?


Good post. I know a bunch of Republican lifers who are totally dissatisfied with the direction of the GOP, and most of them perceive this change and is why they are changing.

The upshot of all this? The crazier they get, the less likely they will win anything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_VarsityBoy_*
post Jul 9 2011, 07:17 PM
Post #12





Guests






QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Jul 8 2011, 10:11 AM) *
I'd rather be talking about real issues. Everybody knows that. Taxes, jobs, health care, law, international relations. Iowa? Not so much. Michele Bachman is the first Republican to sign onto this pledge created by the conservative group The Family Leader:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07/07/2...ould-be-banned/

You can find the full pledge text here, but let's show you some of the more interesting bits.

-One of the 14 pledges requires that the candidate reject Sharia law. While this seems sufficiently irrelevant to be a core issue, I think it really shows the way these people view this election process, and how we should view it in response. This isn't about how our courts operate, this is about spreading the belief that the Christian way, personal, familial, judicial, is the only way. Never mind that no one can ever agree on what a cohesive "Christian" reality is, because that's not what this is about. This is about a specific, pointed exclusion of people of Muslim faith because they have a difference of opinion on matters that some people find unpalatable to disagree on.

-Another asserts that homosexuality is a public safety hazard. That lifestyle causes people to live shorter lives, and makes them more likely to contract diseases. That's bigotry. More than that, it's lying. It's misrepresenting statistical evidence to serve the purpose of character assassination. It does not speak to the character of an individual, but paints everyone who makes a certain set of choices of free will are necessarily categorized in ways that are patently unrealistic. Their statement is perfectly comparable to stating that people who drive cars won't live as long because of the chances of accidents happening. Therefore, cars should be banned.

-The pledge requires the individual to “support human protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy” and to save them from “seduction into promiscuity and all forms of pornography." This places women, once again, to the second class status they face in the Bible as objects to be protected. There is no individual freedom for women, because they clearly cannot avoid "seduction into promiscuity" on their own, and must be removed from the burden of free will. It's unthinkable that in the 21st century, where women are as nearly identical to men as they can get before their employers, the law, and the state, the tide of women's rights seems to be going backwards. Unconscionable.

The Family Leader thinks it's fighting a culture war, and a war on drugs, a war on terror, and a war to preserve their lifestyle. The fact of the matter is, they, Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, the Christian Coalition, Rick Santorum, the Moral Majority, Sarah Palin, Focus on the Family, William Buckley, and all the rest are fighting a war on personal freedom. For all the free market, small government, state's rights lip service they pay, they want churches to run markets instead of governments, freedom of the Church to impose its will, and state's freedom over the freedom of the individual. They want control of education, of science, of free expression, anything else that might breathe an ounce of individualism into our humanity, and cause us to deviate from their sinless heaven on Earth. Trade small-town Christians for urban workers, and I can't tell where the ideological submission to right-wing Christian fundamentalism is any different from the adoption of far-left Communist revolution. The second coming and the dissolution of the state are both coming, everyone had better make like good, busy worker bees to get read for it!

This is not at all conservatism. It's not Republican, and it's not American. It's Christian fascism, plain and simple. Michele Bachman has thrown herself in with this lot, and I beg of anyone who reads this to not vote for that woman, or anyone else who signs onto this. This is every bit as damning as it (rightly) would have been if President Obama had sworn to support the Communist Manifesto on the campaign trail. She has gone past the point of no return: she's not just a family conscious, religious Tea Party candidate. She's Michele the Evangelist, and she wants to take creationism, moral relativism, xenophobia, and 21st century sexism to the White House at the cost of freedom.

George W. Bush took away some of your freedoms to keep you safe. Barack Obama took away some of your freedoms to give you better access to health care. The Family Leader is knocking. What do you think you might get from them when they want your rights?

RM at his best right here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stanleytree
post Jul 9 2011, 07:47 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Nazgul
Posts: 1,478
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 12



Agreed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Jul 9 2011, 11:02 PM
Post #14





Guests






A most valiant defense of women's God-given right to appear in pornography. You are truly the next Susan B. Anthony!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stanleytree
post Jul 9 2011, 11:15 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Nazgul
Posts: 1,478
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Jul 10 2011, 12:02 AM) *
A most valiant defense of women's God-given right to appear in pornography. You are truly the next Susan B. Anthony!

When keepin it real goes wrong
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jul 10 2011, 08:29 AM
Post #16





Guests






QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Jul 9 2011, 04:02 PM) *
A most valiant defense of women's God-given right to appear in pornography.


Will, your witty retort has accidentally brought us to the heart of an important misunderstanding in the modern world. God DOESN'T give rights. The Bible is a series of extended metaphors that form a cohesive condemnation of the exercise of free will. I don't hold anything against individuals who choose to follow it as a system of belief, but I'll be damned if anyone tries to tell me that their book of stories is a necessary or sufficient basis for policy or jurisprudence to rule even those who don't believe as they do.

Additionally complicating, as I have already hinted, God does not give rights, unless the right to plague, incest, suffering, and death count. In fact, God seems quite determined to take them away from anyone who transgresses against his commandments. This book codifies the belief that man exists in the image of God, and that we too must impose our will upon others who transgress against His arbitrary (and ill-defined) laws.

American values like freedom aren't Christian values. America is a nation founded during and by the Enlightenment, and shares Enlightenment ideals which have served us well throughout our history. That's not to say that the two can't coexist (because they can, and should), but this country needs to be run by individuals who put American values first. People like Michele Bachman can do that a large percentage of the time, and I'll give her credit for that. How do I know? Well, her complete refusal to raise taxes on the rich? There's an economic explanation, a free-market explanation, and an American value that underlies that position, and I respect that, even if I don't necessarily agree with her. Now, is that a Christian value? Well:

QUOTE
24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18)


QUOTE
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is[a] to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10)


QUOTE
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19)


Apparently not.

So, with this in mind, I know she can put American values before Christian values while in a political office, I'd just like to see her (and Rick Santorum, now that he's signed this pledge) do that consistently.




On the Susan B. Anthony charge, voting is more important to enfranchising a class of people, but freedom to seek employment is pretty important.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Jul 10 2011, 09:38 AM
Post #17





Guests






You're sort of preaching to the choir telling me God doesn't give rights, considering that I'm an atheist. But at the same time, I don't think the idea of using policy to promote Christian values is quite as crazy as you seem to think it is. You don't have to be a Bible-thumping fundamentalist to believe that preserving traditional family structure might just be good for society; all you have to do is look at the innumerable pieces of evidence that children raised in such families (which includes, I suspect, a great majority of the posters on this board) are far more successful in life than others. It's late and I don't have time to respond to all your charges that Michele Bachmann wants "the church" to "impose its will" on freedom-lovin' Americans right now, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to call people fascists just because they stand up for their values in the public square. Are they actually advocating that the lifestyles they disagree with be banned? You did not provide any evidence for such a claim. So if you want to know why they feel the need to defend their values, take a look in the mirror: you just wrote eight paragraphs attacking them as un-American fascists. I guess you can count me among the un-Americans, because I don't believe American values dictate that our governmental leaders should ignore obvious social problems in the name of "personal freedom".

I do think it's pretty ironic that "women's rights" have apparently progressed from the right to vote to the right to have promiscuous sex on camera. Not exactly a top priority for the early suffragists, I'd suspect, but perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that a group of college-aged males would consider that among the most important rights of women. Do you really think that most women involved in pornography are doing it as a liberated, well informed career choice?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_VarsityBoy_*
post Jul 10 2011, 03:45 PM
Post #18





Guests






QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Jul 10 2011, 09:38 AM) *
You're sort of preaching to the choir telling me God doesn't give rights, considering that I'm an atheist. But at the same time, I don't think the idea of using policy to promote Christian values is quite as crazy as you seem to think it is. You don't have to be a Bible-thumping fundamentalist to believe that preserving traditional family structure might just be good for society; all you have to do is look at the innumerable pieces of evidence that children raised in such families (which includes, I suspect, a great majority of the posters on this board) are far more successful in life than others. It's late and I don't have time to respond to all your charges that Michele Bachmann wants "the church" to "impose its will" on freedom-lovin' Americans right now, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to call people fascists just because they stand up for their values in the public square. Are they actually advocating that the lifestyles they disagree with be banned?

I do think it's pretty ironic that "women's rights" have apparently progressed from the right to vote to the right to have promiscuous sex on camera. Not exactly a top priority for the early suffragists, I'd suspect, but perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that a group of college-aged males would consider that among the most important rights of women. Do you really think that most women involved in pornography are doing it as a liberated, well informed career choice?

my parents divorced, bro.

and do you think that women shouldn't have the choice... but gay porn would be ok because it's men?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stanleytree
post Jul 10 2011, 06:03 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Nazgul
Posts: 1,478
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Jul 10 2011, 09:38 AM) *
You're sort of preaching to the choir telling me God doesn't give rights, considering that I'm an atheist. But at the same time, I don't think the idea of using policy to promote Christian values is quite as crazy as you seem to think it is. You don't have to be a Bible-thumping fundamentalist to believe that preserving traditional family structure might just be good for society; all you have to do is look at the innumerable pieces of evidence that children raised in such families (which includes, I suspect, a great majority of the posters on this board) are far more successful in life than others. It's late and I don't have time to respond to all your charges that Michele Bachmann wants "the church" to "impose its will" on freedom-lovin' Americans right now, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to call people fascists just because they stand up for their values in the public square. Are they actually advocating that the lifestyles they disagree with be banned? You did not provide any evidence for such a claim. So if you want to know why they feel the need to defend their values, take a look in the mirror: you just wrote eight paragraphs attacking them as un-American fascists. I guess you can count me among the un-Americans, because I don't believe American values dictate that our governmental leaders should ignore obvious social problems in the name of "personal freedom".

I do think it's pretty ironic that "women's rights" have apparently progressed from the right to vote to the right to have promiscuous sex on camera. Not exactly a top priority for the early suffragists, I'd suspect, but perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that a group of college-aged males would consider that among the most important rights of women. Do you really think that most women involved in pornography are doing it as a liberated, well informed career choice?


Here's how I see it: yes, it is certainly true that kids from non-divorced families are going to be more successful along certain parameters. But are you willing to go to the point to DENY people the right to divorce? Because that's the only way to "preserve" these family values, and denying people the right to divorce is laughable. You can practice what you preach, and you can try to get others to do it, but you can't force it on anybody.

Then you come back to the denial of Sharia Law for the same principle. Yes, you can believe in the principles. But when you're running for President and blatantly deny such simple ideals as "freedom of religion", then that's borderline fascism.

And the bolded statement: if you can extend the idea of women having choice to do anything to doing porn, we can make the extension to fascism. Much easier, in fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BigTS_*
post Jul 10 2011, 06:29 PM
Post #20





Guests






I'm actually with Will here.

smurf like this happens in the porn industry all the time. My problem with porn is not that it's immoral. I would trust a BDSM-loving actress to babysit my (hypothetical) children long before some Christian creep who didn't engage in sexual play, but old-fashioned authoritarian domination.

All economic activity under capitalism is done in the background of the coercion inherent in private property. But when one of those background conditions is also gender hierarchy, it means that forms of employment available to females, and the types of sexual expression that are normalized and expected, are defined by and for men. This is why, when I read responses above all I see is men who are probably not emotionally capable of empathizing with women around this issue. No one should be paid to have sex.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th July 2018 - 10:24 PM