Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Awesome Republican Primary Thread
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 1485 (621747)
06-28-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-27-2011 11:39 PM


I'm sure that this is mainly a cultural thing, but every time I hear Sarah Palin speak all I can think of is the Weivoda Carpet Girl who in Grand Forks, ND, circa 1980 appeared in a series of the most irritating TV commercials ever. Her shrill voice, stream of rapid incomprehensible sales pitches, and stupid physical stunts on the forks of a moving forklift would have anyone grabbing for the remote, if only we had one in those days.
To have such a voice represent us in the world. Imagine the worldwide rush to launch a pre-emptive strike just in order to get rid of that noise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-27-2011 11:39 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 218 of 1485 (631847)
09-03-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by fearandloathing
09-03-2011 3:02 PM


Re: Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have ties to Dominionism?
I had never heard of Dominionism until right now. Can it get any worse?
I've known about the Christian Reconstructionist movement since the mid-1980's, after it was reported on in a three-part religion-and-government Bill Moyer special. Mainly, that special was looking at the rise of the Radical Religious Right in the early 80's. Here's the basic story as I recall that special telling it:
Historically, fundamentalists would not involve themselves in politics; one analogy is that they viewed it was polishing the brass on a sinking ship. But then the presidential campaign of born-again Jimmy Carter started getting them involved -- I forget whether their votes helped to get him elected. But then Carter had that conference on the family that extended the definition of family to include many kinds of families that the fundamentalists did not approve of. Feeling betrayed, it was very easy for the Republicans to woo them over.
In the meantime, the fundamentalist leaders started to learn politics from the Reconstructionists, even though they disagreed with them on theology. The Reconstructionists are post-millennialists, believing that Jesus will return at the end of the thousand years of Christian rule established by his followers, whereas fundamentalists are premillennialists, believing that Jesus will return at the beginning of those thousand years and will usher them in. The Reconstructionists have a more pro-active political plan for establishing an Old Testament Theocracy, which the fundamentalists adopted, but whereas the Reconstructionists' plan is multi-generational in which they will educate the people to the point where they will want such a government (and for this reason they are very much into the home-schooling movement), the fundamentalists wanted to establish that theocracy immediately and through the force of law by taking control of the government. Hence the fundamentalist plans were highly visible because of the political and legal battles they spawn, while the Reconstructionist plans continue on their long-term trajectories virtually unnoticed.
In that special, Reconstructionists discussed their proposed theocracy that would reinstate Old Testatment laws. The prison problem would solved by only incarcerating criminals long enough to stand trial. After that, those convicted of capital crimes (of which there would be more) would be immediately executed and the rest would be sold into slavery, out of which a Christian could eventually earn his freedom back. What remained unsaid was what would happen to non-Christian slaves, that they were just plain SOL and could never regain their freedom? And also, wouldn't not being of the right religion be considered a crime under this system, thus automatically condemning entire sections of the population to a lifetime of slavery? And don't such "true Christians" also consider most other Christian denominations to not be Christian?
I also found an article in Christianity Today circa 1987 about Christian Reconstructionism. It quoted reconstructionists as denouncing democracy, human rights, religious liberty, etc, as humanistic heresies; one even denounced them as inventions of Satan. In fact, I seem to recall the article title to be something like Democracy as Heresy. On a positive note, that completely refutes the Religious Right's nonsensical claim that our government was based on biblical principles.
They've been at it for over 30 years now, resulting in the Republican Party having been taken over by religious ideologues and those who cater to them and in an increasingly polarized government and society. By their fruits you will know them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by fearandloathing, posted 09-03-2011 3:02 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by xongsmith, posted 09-05-2011 1:10 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 550 of 1485 (648974)
01-19-2012 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by Rahvin
01-19-2012 12:39 PM


Re: Things Rick Perry Doesn't Know
Have you pointed Chuck77 towards this? AnonRa lists some of the things that he needs to learn so that he can start to understand what evolution is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by Rahvin, posted 01-19-2012 12:39 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 597 of 1485 (649272)
01-21-2012 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 596 by DC85
01-21-2012 9:31 PM


Dude! Even Ronnie Himself wouldn't have a chance! The inmates have taken over the Republican asylum!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by DC85, posted 01-21-2012 9:31 PM DC85 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(6)
Message 773 of 1485 (655464)
03-10-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by foreveryoung
03-08-2012 7:47 PM


To start with, I see you using the same kind of logic as in that old carnard, "Morality only makes sense if God exists, so if there were no God I would be an axe murderer." Just because contraception removes one of the worries of vaginal sex (both intra- and extra-marital) does not automatically mean that we would immediately go on an extramarital sex binge. Why would we? Why would we want to? It's like the mistaken that lack of belief in God automatically leads to irresponsible behavior -- just because we're not answerable to a fictional character (the atheist's view) does not even begin to mean that we are not answerable for our actions. For millennia, lack of contraceptives had little effect on extramarital sex, so their availability would have little different effect. So the claim about the effects of contraception on human behavior is one of those off-the-wall claims that makes our eyes roll and our heads shake in disbelief at what some people will believe. As well as do comedians' joke writing for them.
And as others have pointed out already, most of the sex involving contraceptives is within the marriage. Because sex is part of a couple's intimate relationship, not just for procreation.
Though last night on Bill Maher's Real Time at about 27 minutes in, panel member Catherine Crier cited Santorum as advocating "sex only within marriage and only for procreation" and called upon women to give the Republicans exactly what they want, no sex except within marriage and then only for procreation. She predicts that in a very short time Republicans will be lining up in favor of women's issues.
Precedents:
Crier cited women in South America having gone on a sex strike to protest violence. I kind of remember having heard of that, but don't know the details.
Aristophanes' comedic play, Lysistrata, first performed in 411 BCE:
quote:
... a comic account of one woman's extraordinary mission to end The Peloponnesian War. Lysistrata persuades the women of Greece to withhold sexual privileges from their husbands and lovers as a means of forcing the men to negotiate peace -- ...
PS
If you have access to the program (on HBO this entire week), notice that Bill Maher basically ignores Crier's proposal both times she brings it up. Guess he has a horse in that race and doesn't like the thought of being cut off.
But just think of what could happen if the women of America were to answer her call.
Edited by dwise1, : PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 7:47 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 774 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2012 5:01 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 815 of 1485 (656740)
03-21-2012 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 811 by Dr Adequate
03-21-2012 3:00 PM


Re: Why Is Newt Gingrich?
For one thing, having a rich sugar daddy to finance the whole ride must be a powerful enabler. If he had to raise the funds himself from his followers, he would have had to drop out long ago as those funds would have dried up as his followers saw that he has no hope of winning. I've also heard where this entire super-PAC funding issue will also lead to a drying up of grass-roots support for the candidates, something that will also affect Obama's re-election campaign. But back to the original question, as long as any candidate has a rich donor footing the bills, there's no reason to drop out.
Second, there certainly must be something to the idea that nobody wants to just hand the candidacy to Romney. And the fact that so many Republican voters aren't happy with having him as a choice but only vote for him because he's the most electable one offered them must weigh in to that idea as well.
Third, even though Romney seems inevitable, there's still the party platform to be hammered out. It looks like they all want to have some say in building that platform and the currency that gives each of them that say is the number of delegates that they hold in their back pockets. Again, it's the change away from winner-take-all that splits up the delegates and enables this reason.
Fourth, what are the losing candidates' future plans? This one is just my own crazy thought. Normally, I can only think of one candidate who, election year after election year, went out campaigning in the primaries and, in spite of being a running joke, finally ended up becoming the GOP candidate, the 40th President, a GOP idol, and replacing Thomas Starr King in the Capitol Rotunda. But other than him, I cannot think of any other candidates who lost and came back to try again. Is that something that any of them, include Newt, even consider? Well, this time around Sarah Palin was testing the waters cautiously, but didn't dive in. Could some of the candidates be trying to jockey into some position in the actual Presidential campaign that they hope they can broker into a better chance running in the future?
Why is Newt Gingrich? What's he there for? It would be easy, indeed facile, to explain his candidature with the words "ego trip", except that in fact he must be taking a repeated pummeling to his ego as he finds out that everyone hates him because ... well, because he's filth, I think that's the main reason. He might well be ahead of Santorum if he wasn't such a sack of shit.
Having had to deal with a megalomaniacal creationist he is truly a "sack of shit", I can safely say that a megalomaniacal sack of shit will not recognize that simple fact of life, even though it's obvious to everybody else.
Edited by dwise1, : SoS addendum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-21-2012 3:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 816 by Perdition, posted 03-21-2012 3:47 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1354 of 1485 (754183)
03-24-2015 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1343 by Faith
03-24-2015 7:01 PM


Re: Ted Cruz has tweeted!
The Constitution requires that a President be born in the USA ...
Completely and utter false! Before you tell us what the Constitution requires, shouldn't you take a little time to read it first? Is it an article of faith with you that you must be ignorant of everything you choose to pontificate on?
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States (my emphasis added):
quote:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
While the Constitution does not specify exactly how "a natural born Citizen" is defined, subsequent law, including the Naturalization Act of 1790, has. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that:
quote:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."
His mother was a citizen, so he is a "natural born Citizen" as required, regardless of the fact that he was also born in the USA (a former co-worker and native Hawaiian could never understand the main-land idiots who didn't realize that Hawaii is in the USA).
Why do you still believe that ignorance works? It doesn't!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1343 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 7:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1355 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 9:48 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 1416 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2015 9:23 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1363 of 1485 (754205)
03-25-2015 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1357 by Faith
03-24-2015 10:16 PM


Re: Ted Cruz has tweeted!
I'd like to believe dwise is right and that Obama WAS born in Kenya, ...
Of course I'm right on this. I quoted the Constitution to you. And what constitutes a "natural born citizen." I was presenting the clear and plain facts, something that you were completely avoiding. You can read up on it yourself at Natural-born-citizen clause, but we all know that you are going to cling desperately to your ignorance for as long as you can.
There are two Latin terms that describe how one derives ones citizenship. I forget what they are exactly, since that lesson was taught nearly half a century ago, but loosely translated they are something like "Law of Blood" and "Law of Soil". "Law of Soil" refers to where you were born. You are a natural citizen of the USA if you are born here, even if both your parents are non-citizens. "Law of Blood" refers to your parents. Regardless of where you are born, if one of your parents was a US citizen at the time of your birth, then so are you. There are many cases in which a person holds dual citizenship. For example, when my ex-wife was born, her mother was still a Mexican citizen so she could have claimed dual US/Mexican citizenship. A friend in college had triple citizenship because his father was American, his mother was British, and he was born in India. According to my understanding which might not be correct, at some point, such as at age 18 or 21, you must choose one and renounce the others. Though that doesn't explain why it was just within the past few years that Ted Cruz finally renounced his Canadian citizenship ... on 14 May 2014, to be exact, less than a year ago. Like I said, I'm a bit hazy on that part.
Either one, "Law of Blood" or "Law of Soil", will make you a natural born citizen, but there's nothing to keep both from being in effect. For example, both my parents were natural born US citizens and I was born in the USA, so both apply to me. For that matter, both apply to the vast majority of US citizens. So then if "Law of Blood" makes Obama a natural born US citizen, why would that have to mean that "Law of Soil" didn't apply. In his case, as in the case of most US citizens, both rules do indeed apply since he was born in Hawaii as well as having been born to a US citizen. As we've known all along. Yes, he could also claim a foreign citizenship through his Kenyan father, no different from many other US citizens with dual or even triple citizenships. So what's the problem?
If you are still upset about Obama's non-citizen father, what about Ted Cruz? His mother was American and his father was Cuban. An American mother and a non-American father, just like Obama. But unlike Obama, Ted Cruz wasn't born in the USA, but rather in a foreign country, in Canada. And for decades Ted Cruz held dual citizenship (or was that triple, given that his father was Cuban?), such that it was less than a year ago that he finally renounced his Canadian citizenship.
You've got birther problems with Obama? What about Ted Cruz? Why do you persist in avoiding voicing your birther problems with Ted Cruz? They should be far stronger than your problems with Obama, since Ted Cruz is violating far more of what you are complaining about with Obama. Why so quiet all of a sudden, Faith?
But that raises the question why this wasn't recognized a long time ago, ...
It was recognized a long time ago, practically from the start. It's the birthers who refuse to accept the facts. They're even more bat-shit crazy than creationists are! And they hate reality even more than creationists do ... OK, maybe not more. But you can't talk with those people!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1357 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 10:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1364 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:33 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 1368 of 1485 (754223)
03-25-2015 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1364 by Faith
03-25-2015 5:33 AM


Re: Ted Cruz has tweeted!
What the hell are you babbling about this time?
This is the first time I've heard anything about Ted Cruz but nothing stops you from making me into a liar.
Only you can make yourself into a liar. That is clearly what you are doing with these bat-shit-crazy outbursts of yours. If you do not want to be made into a liar, then stop doing it!
And, no, this was not the first time that you've heard about the facts behind Ted Cruz' birth. You have been informed of it several times already in this topic and directly asked to respond about it. Yes, I was the first to tell you about him having waited until less than a year ago to renounce his Canadian dual-citizenship, but you had been amply informed of his foreign birth several times in the past day in this topic. That means that you just lied. You keep making yourself into a liar. Please stop making yourself into a liar.
The facts were made clearly from the start: Obama was born in Hawaii of a mother who was a US citizen. Only bat-shit crazies can continue to deny the facts. The ones who care about the truth follow the facts and do not deny them. Birthers do not care about the truth.
And please stop lying about everything. We all know all too well how much you hate reality, but that's not a good reason for you to lie about everything.
And please learn something about the Constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1364 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024