IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

18 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Right Wing Megathread, ITT: RM gets to be a partisan hack with reckless abandon
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Jul 10 2011, 07:17 PM
Post #21





Guests






QUOTE (VarsityBoy @ Jul 10 2011, 07:45 AM) *
and do you think that women shouldn't have the choice... but gay porn would be ok because it's men?

I did not say that pornography should be illegal, and I'm not sure the Family Leader pledge even said that. I just said that it's silly and demeaning to put something like porn up on a pedestal with women's voting rights.

My personal opinion on the morality of porn would not differ between gay and straight porn. I can't speak for the Family Leader on that one.

QUOTE (Stanley Tree @ Jul 10 2011, 10:03 AM) *
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.

Did the Family Leader pledge say that divorce should be illegal? If not, this is a non-issue. It's certainly not true that the only way to discourage divorce is to ban it.

QUOTE
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.

Banning Sharia law from the courts is silly, because no courts are using Sharia law in the first place, but I don't see how it denies anyone freedom of religion. They're not saying Muslims can't believe in Sharia law, just that our justice system can't use it as a guideline.

QUOTE (debator @ Jul 10 2011, 11:17 AM) *
if i'm not mistaken, you're fairly economically libertarian. why do our economic freedoms stop at sex? because it's sex, and it's somehow radically different from other things we do? ... i think the answer is that society has traditionally stigmatized sex, often for religious and/or misogynistic reasons, and whether you're aware of it or not, that stigma is informing your view.

While this may be true of some people, it's certainly not true of me or many of the other people I know who oppose promiscuity and prostitution. It's not because we believe sex is bad; in fact it's precisely the opposite. Sex is a very special - some would even say, sacred - interaction between two people. But we've had that debate before and it isn't the central point here, especially since no one has yet provided any evidence that the Family Leader actually said porn should be banned.

Everyone responding to this thread needs to realize that everyone - you, me, gay rights activists, the people at the Family Leader - implicitly wants the government to promote their own values and votes accordingly. You can disagree with their values and the policies they advocate, but it's pretty stupid to call them fascists for disagreeing with you, since a quick read of the first paragraph of that article will show you their positions do not fit the definition at all.

To debator, while I may be economically "libertarian" in the sense of generally supporting free markets, that position is not based on any kind of libertarian philosophy; it's simply because I think the evidence shows free markets make people and societies better off than other systems. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees more profoundly with the libertarian worldview.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Jul 10 2011, 11:36 PM
Post #22





Guests






QUOTE (debator @ Jul 10 2011, 11:50 AM) *
i don't think it's my place - or the place of the president - to tell other people not to engage in the second.

Nor does the pledge, to my knowledge, suggest that we should outlaw casual sex - does it? Anyway, like I said, this debate is off topic for the thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Jul 10 2011, 11:46 PM
Post #23





Guests






QUOTE (debator @ Jul 10 2011, 11:43 AM) *
wait...so you don't think that people should be able to make their own decisions about pretty much everything?

This is getting ridiculous. I said I disagree with libertarian philosophy, i.e., the idea that personal decisions do not affect others or society as a whole and therefore should be immune from regulation or criticism. I did not say the government should enforce any specific set of personal choices. Is everyone in this thread really incapable of understanding the difference between promoting certain values and decisions and legally enforcing them? None of you are clearly articulating which one you're talking about or which one the Family Leader is talking about. Quit using straw men.

QUOTE (debator @ Jul 10 2011, 03:42 PM) *
and like i said, no it's not: it's at the heart of the matter. what sets pornography apart? why should a person not be free to appear in pornography? it must have something to do with the nature of the work. i think that it's morally ok; you don't. so why not?

Well, actually, I didn't say that. I merely said it was reasonable for the Family Leader to think it's not morally OK and to voice that opinion in the political sphere.

I don't see how saying "sex is special" stigmatizes it. The intent is exactly the opposite - to elevate it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jul 11 2011, 12:33 AM
Post #24





Guests






QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Jul 10 2011, 02:38 AM) *
You're sort of preaching to the choir telling me God doesn't give rights, considering that I'm an atheist.


Indeed, and I hope I'm not coming across as preaching at you, specifically, because my tone in this thread is supposed to be a much broader rant against a far less ideologically nuanced voting bloc.

QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Jul 10 2011, 02:38 AM) *
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.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. I don't think you're arguing against what I'm about to say, but this requires a point of clarification:

Traditional family structure = (Man + Woman) x married

Empirically optimal structure = (X + Y) x committed relationship, where x and y are arbitrary individuals, which may be either male or female.

The "traditional family structure" as Christian fundamentalists define it is far more restrictive than the realistic optimal situation to serve their own prejudices. It obfuscates the real issue, and draws attention away from uncomfortable statistics like the fact that people who consider themselves fundamentalist Christians divorce at a higher rate than any other religious group. If we want to promote an optimal result, but let's try to reduce divorce rates, not "promote a traditional structure." This is something that calls for a narrowly tailed solution, not a promotion of an ideology. Though, honestly, I think that last criticism applies more broadly than just this segment of our political system.

QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Jul 10 2011, 02:38 AM) *
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?


Would you call earning minimum wage at McDonald's a liberated, well-informed career choice? No? Well then let's ban it!

No, I don't think it's an especially self-actualizing career choice for women or men (who, by the way, make significantly less money than women in a similar work environment), and I don't think "the right to have have promiscuous sex on camera" is an especially important right. The fact is, that is not its own right, but a subset of the freedom to contract and seek employment. Just as I don't want the government telling me I have to work in a steel mill, I also don't want them telling me I can't work in a non-criminal industry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jul 11 2011, 12:55 AM
Post #25





Guests






QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Jul 10 2011, 02:38 AM) *
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?


Here's the reason I call them fascists: because the answer to that question is very much yes.

QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Jul 10 2011, 02:38 AM) *
You did not provide any evidence for such a claim.


I provided a link. If that's insufficient, bolded in the following quote are the sentences which I believe constitute proof that the offending parties (Rick Santorum and Michele Bachman) are signatories to a pledge to promote fascism:

QUOTE
The Candidate Vow:
Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:
–Personal fidelity to my spouse.
–Respect for the marital bonds of others.
–Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.
–Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.
–Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy.
–Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.”
–Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.
Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as
between one man and one woman in all of the United States.

Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children –
from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution,
infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.
–Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel,
especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.
Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.
–Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial
health and security.
–Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion
public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.
–Fierce defense of the First Amendment‟s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the
intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.


I don't think it's unfair to say "I agree with a lot of things in there, but there are elements here which look to me like fascism."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BigTS_*
post Jul 11 2011, 03:33 AM
Post #26





Guests






The people at Family Leader are promoting the unspoken expectation for women to subordinate their public identities (and career and social lives) to their male partner's while men often defer house-sphere decisions to them (like, what to make for dinner). "God’s ultimate plan for marriage and the family" has been the root of every attack on birth control accessibility, abortion, and even free sexual relationships.

But besides that, hardcore End Times fundamentalists indeed are fascists, considering that they apply their interpretation of the Bible to all things in life (including modern politics). So, that gives birth to a whole line of reactionary ideas, such as that the United Nations is a tool of the Antichrist, that there is no need to have concern for the environment anymore since it's pretty much going to disappear soon anyway, and that Israel should be defended so that they can expand indefinitely, to the point of destroying the world. They are being loud and voicing those opinions in public because they quite literally want a theocracy. And that is something all freedom-loving people should oppose.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_beregond_*
post Jul 11 2011, 04:45 AM
Post #27





Guests






Yeah...
BigTS, I think you're taking a huge, gigantic, almost unconscionable leap between modern policy and theocracy - if you'd stop soiling our particular viewpoint with that rhetoric, I'd appreciate it.
All of that considered, though, and just speaking as your somewhat typical Californian semi-liberal on these matters, I have absolutely no problem with people following their theological beliefs, of course. I'm even possibly pondering searching for a Christianity I can work with myself. What I have a problem with is people imposing those beliefs and those lifestyles upon other people, or punishing them for making alternate decisions. As someone who believes that the best possible world is one in which, generally, people live and let live, I have a major issue with policy issues coming from one group's personal beliefs. This is, personally, why I have such an issue with the religious right and being against gay marriage - you can believe all you want, but if you're imposing your beliefs onto my friends and people who deserve to be together, that's when you tar your entire faith and all congregations with the same brush.
I don't think anyone on this board has any particular disagreement on that point - in general, rhetoric occasionally excepted, we seem to be fairly reasonable people, and thank whichever God you like for that. My problem with the Family Leader group is exactly the same: STOP HATING PEOPLE.
And I know that much of the right wing calls my particular viewpoint love-happy liberal. Truth is, I have little idea what economic policy works, because honestly, I don't even know that economists are agreed on what economic policy works and you don't tell a Medieval knight to fix a broken M3. What defines me as a liberal is policies like this from much of the conservative wing. If much of the politics of exclusion were erased, I would honestly just vote for whichever candidate struck me as a competent and good leader, a good man, instead of voting almost exclusively on policy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jul 11 2011, 05:12 AM
Post #28





Guests






QUOTE (BigTS @ Jul 10 2011, 11:29 AM) *
All economic activity under capitalism is done in the background of the coercion inherent in private property.


I think you've confused "coercion" with "incentives."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BigTS_*
post Jul 11 2011, 03:42 PM
Post #29





Guests






I was kind of just agreeing with RM's point, I don't get your hostility.

And I don't really want to get into the "Marxism v.s. capitalism" debate. The issue I guess is not that it's coercive, although it very obviously is because you only have the choice of subordinating yourself to a different managerial regime that capitalists create or starving (there is little room of cooperatives, or worker-run enterprises, because of the monopoly that they have over the means of production), but that it's exploitative, in that capitalism depends on people producing more wealth than they're paid back in wages in order for their bosses to have revenue for reinvestment and personal accumulation. The point is that you work for them or die, and that our state protects that arrangement (and our superstructure touts it as being the most "efficient" and superior, even as multiple global and imperial crises threaten to destroy it) when it clearly doesn't have to be like this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_beregond_*
post Jul 11 2011, 10:38 PM
Post #30





Guests






By that logic, in your description, you can also effectively replace "their bosses" with "the state" in a Marxist sense, and the description needs very little changing, from the viewpoint of the average worker. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, as a very wise man once said.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jul 11 2011, 11:56 PM
Post #31





Guests






QUOTE (beregond @ Jul 11 2011, 03:38 PM) *
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, as a very wise man once said.


I only quote Roger Daltry when the other side wins.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_beregond_*
post Jul 12 2011, 12:53 AM
Post #32





Guests






QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Jul 11 2011, 04:56 PM) *
QUOTE (beregond @ Jul 11 2011, 03:38 PM) *
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, as a very wise man once said.


I only quote Roger Daltry when the other side wins.

I don't always quote Roger Daltrey, but when I do, I do it whenever I want to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_VarsityBoy_*
post Jul 12 2011, 01:24 AM
Post #33





Guests






QUOTE (beregond @ Jul 12 2011, 12:53 AM) *
QUOTE (Research Monkey @ Jul 11 2011, 04:56 PM) *
QUOTE (beregond @ Jul 11 2011, 03:38 PM) *
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, as a very wise man once said.


I only quote Roger Daltry when the other side wins.

I don't always quote Roger Daltrey, but when I do, I do it whenever I want to.

QFT
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BigTS_*
post Jul 12 2011, 06:37 PM
Post #34





Guests






QUOTE (beregond @ Jul 11 2011, 06:38 PM) *
By that logic, in your description, you can also effectively replace "their bosses" with "the state" in a Marxist sense, and the description needs very little changing, from the viewpoint of the average worker. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, as a very wise man once said.


I would argue that all of the old party-states, while at once founded by genuine liberatory movements that had popular support, became state capitalist. In this respect, I find both Trotsky and Mao's insights on restoration of the capitalist class to be equally important, while they are at odds of each other nevertheless.

Mao argued that a capitalist class emerges within socialism, based on capitalist aspects of socialism itself, and consolidates as a class aspiring to power (with it's headquarters in the party and the state, hence "bombard the party headquarters"). There is a mistaken view of capital, shared both by libertarians and certain right-wing socialists, that only associates socialism with specific legal forms-like state ownership, regulation and whatnot.

Let me use an analogy: feudalism in western Europe was largely based on private and hereditary forms of ownership. The lord had control over the land and the serfs. But there was nothing in feudalism that required that specific type of ownership for it to actually be called feudalism. There are other forms, such as the Catholic or Orthodox Church, or the Dalai Lama's state in Tibet, where it wasn't hereditary-based. Or in southwest Asia, there was no ownership of the land, it just took the form of the monarchy taxing the peasants.

This post has been edited by BigTS: Jul 12 2011, 08:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jul 13 2011, 02:22 AM
Post #35





Guests






http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...supervisor.html

Epic lulz
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Jul 13 2011, 03:00 AM
Post #36





Guests






...this is true, but a debate about socialism had sort of taken over. I guess if it's my thread, I'll take it back over. Can you move this thread into that one?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Widget!_*
post Jul 13 2011, 03:27 AM
Post #37





Guests






...are...are Republicans just bad at geography? Because that's really more "East California" than "South"...

Also, the Arizona dig was well-executed. Props.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Crow_*
post Jul 13 2011, 07:18 AM
Post #38





Guests






I thought somebody might appreciate this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_blondie13_*
post Jul 13 2011, 01:25 PM
Post #39





Guests






WI politics are so smurfed up right now, I'm really sick of it. :/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BigTS_*
post Jul 13 2011, 04:33 PM
Post #40





Guests






And in Georgia...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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 October 2018 - 01:39 PM