Anti-gay boycott of conservative powwow gains steam

[Kulindahr]

If the fundie christians got control of the Republican Party, how about an effort for the homos to do the same.

If all the homos in the US became registered national repubs, and started getting their candidates elected and the gay agenda slipped into the party platform, it wouldn't take long before the party started dressing more to the centre or on the left.

And everyone knows that the homos can throw a great party.

The xians would be forced to split off and form a radical sect and thus marginalized, would effectively expire.

Except in Texas.

LOL

I love it. Trouble is, there are enough 'evangelicals' to be a majority in the GOP; there aren't enough of us.

 

[Stardreamer]

^Kulindahr, you're right.

Stardreamer seems to be a nice person, but he really is in denial, because the Xians outnumber the GOProud by the millions.

Not denial but as my name says a dreamer. I move in conservative circles and listen to commentary and discussion on the right. There are changes happening and Republicans are not stupid when it comes to staying in power. They have already figured out that the social issues that are the focus of the religious right are not long term winners at the voting box, particularly in this economy. That alone has the religious right's influence reduced. They have also noted the growing acceptance of homosexuality and the gay rights issues by the people as a whole and while they would like to reverse that trend are not so foolish to think they can ignore it.

On the social issues they continue to say the words and pander to the religious right base but they don't have as much heart for it as they did. The real danger right now is the massive rallying of the far right as a whole following the defeats in 2008. The RINO (Republican in Name Only) Hunters are blaming moderates for the parties failures and this is causing a dangerous (IMO) purging of moderates from the party. Spirits how I hate that RINO term and mindset behind it.

 

[MIJ-VI]

Mmm... ^ A possible 3rd party?

 

[Kulindahr]

@Stardreamer:

The Christians being in the Republican Party is an accident of history, anyway. Christianity holds dear some ideas that are in direct opposition to Republicanism, e.g., taking care of the sick and the poor, and hating the rich.

I think it would take another charismatic Christian to undo the damage that Jerry Falwell, an obscenely rich man, did.

I've often wished I had the charisma of Falwell, Robertson, Roberts, and Graham all wrapped together. It would be a delight to see faces go "Aha!" as they grasped that political power is not a command in the Great Commission and greed and despite are not Christian virtues.

<sigh>

Well, I've managed to see a few faces get it, anyway.

 

[Kulindahr]

@Stardreamer:

The Christians being in the Republican Party is an accident of history, anyway. Christianity holds dear some ideas that are in direct opposition to Republicanism, e.g., taking care of the sick and the poor, and hating the rich.

I think it would take another charismatic Christian to undo the damage that Jerry Falwell, an obscenely rich man, did.

It boggles the mind how Christians can have gone back to the lie Jesus trashed, that being rich means God approves of you.

 

[Sausy]

@Stardreamer:

The Christians being in the Republican Party is an accident of history, anyway. Christianity holds dear some ideas that are in direct opposition to Republicanism, e.g., taking care of the sick and the poor, and hating the rich.

I think it would take another charismatic Christian to undo the damage that Jerry Falwell, an obscenely rich man, did.

Wealth in and of itself isn't evil,and Christ never taught anyone to hate the rich.Many people like Falwell and Robertson and their ilk however represent the kind of greed Christ most certainly fought against.They are not men of God but usurpers of God's name.Taking care of the sick and the poor cost money....private charity can do as well if not better than taxpayer funded programs,even though we need both.There is a place for wealth,but its accumulation cannot be an end in itself.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's an assumption. One you go on with here:

You assume with your silly hypothetical that those who neglect their civic duty does so because they wouldn't vote for either of the two main parties. I'm fairly certain there would be votes for Kang or Kodos to go along with those thrown away for a 3rd party.

Nice to see you approve of the way the country is. All of you who buy into the current game are part of the problem.

As for that assumption -- try reading. There's no assumption involved; it's a simple if/then statement.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wealth in and of itself isn't evil,and Christ never taught anyone to hate the rich.Many people like Falwell and Robertson and their ilk however represent the kind of greed Christ most certainly fought against.They are not men of God but usurpers of God's name.Taking care of the sick and the poor cost money....private charity can do as well if not better than taxpayer funded programs,even though we need both.There is a place for wealth,but its accumulation cannot be an end in itself.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Comfort yourself as you will, the fact is that the country is messed up. Who's gotten it messed up? Well, the people in power while it's been getting this way are the Republicans and Democrats. They're the ones who've given us this mess.

So how can you say a vote for either isn't a vote for the same old thing? Are you expecting a miracle, that maybe the Democrats would suddenly turn into the party of Jefferson, or the Republicans into the party of Lincoln?

*sigh* "... try reading", he says. Yes, it is a simple hypothetical, an extremely simple one. And hypothetical statements require assumptions. If you vote for 3rd parties, as I believe you mentioned before, on any basis that if you obtain the miracle that your extremely simple hypothetical would one day come true, then it is more than just a simple if/then statement--- and then you and your simplistic "principled" idealism are parts of the problem when the greater of two evils win because you're sending a message--- "I'm with stupid."

Of course, and this me being preemptive to a counter-fallacy claim to undermine my argument as opposed to discussing merits of said, that isn't to dismiss the possibility that 3rd parties can and do win--- but you need the empirical evidence to make it a pragmatic vote, not just a principled waste, to get away with claiming I am arguing a false dichotomy.

I didn't make any assumptions -- I said "IF", without any reference to motivation or probability, and "THEN", without any reference to results other than the mere statement of having voted that way.

Voting Republican says "I'm with stupid", voting Democrat says "I'm with stupid" -- voting third-party says, "You guys vote for evil if you want; I refuse to endorse the mess."

The only reason a 'third' party vote can be considered a waste is because the corrupt two in power have rigged the system in their favor. It isn't even democracy any more, because they don't require majorities to get elected. They've got themselves subsidized by the government, as well; they don't get a bill for the voting in the primaries.

So to fail to vote 'third' party is to say things are kool, to endorse the corruption and rigged system, and to tell the tyrannical two to keep on as they are.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow -- I refer to real things, and you accuse me of "labels"... and counter it with labeling. Cute.

Wow -- doublespeak and doublethink alive and well: in order to be not part of the problem, you want me to support the problem!

They've got you well-brainwashed, dude -- you think that applauding the people who got us into this mess is the way to get out of it.

 

[Kulindahr]

I go to specifics, you call it "vapid".

No wonder you support the establishment as it is.

 

[jackoroe]

Gentlemen. Let's stay on topic and stop with the personal insults. Please.

 

[Kulindahr]

And then, what about assisted housing? The government program here for subsidised housing is several months long, but private charities—as far as I'm able to discern—don't even have an equivalent.

Since I was doing searching for housing not that long ago....

If your waiting list there is only months long, you're doing well -- the list where I am right now is pushing five years, and where I was thinking of going was pushing three.

But as for private charities providing subsidized housing -- they're not permitted to, on a large scale; I talked with a number of outfits that have tried. It's why we have kids sleeping under bushes and families resorting to abandoned freight containers -- private entities have stepped forward to offer solutions, but they have to go through bureaucratic hell and pay massive fees to even get looked at, and if they're lucky, four years from now they might be allowed to offer some very restricted assistance. If government would get out of the way, my town's homeless problem could be taken care of in under a month. Instead, government goes about condemning or hauling away the places people have to live -- and charging them for it, and if they can't pay, imposing jail time.

The law has built a very nice near-monopoly on providing "housing assistance", and wields a heavy hand to make sure people need it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, all of that sounds good on paper, but do you really think that private charities would have the funds to provide enough assistance for all of the needs?

Besides that, the medical situation was not addressed. A simple look at the numbers will reveal the ugly fact that private charities could not even hope to succeed in that endeavor.

Nothing "paper" to it -- government here is part of the problem when it comes to housing, and should get out of the way.

Provide for all? That can't be done anyway. But so long as government excels at being part of the problem, we'll never know how close charities could come.

I know I didn't address medical -- I didn't intend to. But I do think the private sector could do a lot more if government wasn't helping maintain the silly system we now have -- like, stop endorsing monopolistic and restrictive outfits like the AMA which keep costs high by keeping the supply of doctors low.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Everyone loves to bitch about the government and it's "red tape". But the minute government doesn't regulate something, and the news media reports a story where some child was molested at a privately funded housing project or whatever, nearly 90% of the public come screaming "there outta be a law"!!!! I mean my god, look how many of you all came screaming for justice/execution for one guy being a dickhead to a dog or two.

A country, including the USA has the very government it's entitled to as they voted it into being.

 

[Kulindahr]

A country, including the USA has the very government it's entitled to as they voted it into being.

No, they didn't. The special interests with big checks bought it into being. The real power doesn't lie with anyone elected, it lies with the unelected bureaucrats wielding arbitrary power, protected by unions.

Electing different officials rarely changes anything. The inertia of bureaucracy moves on regardless, fashioned to a great extent by the same special interests it's supposed to keep in check.

 

[MIJ-VI]

No, they didn't. The special interests with big checks bought it into being. The real power doesn't lie with anyone elected, it lies with the unelected bureaucrats wielding arbitrary power, protected by unions.

Electing different officials rarely changes anything. The inertia of bureaucracy moves on regardless, fashioned to a great extent by the same special interests it's supposed to keep in check.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNKjShmHw7s[/ame]

 

[Kulindahr]

^
awesome!

 

[MIJ-VI]

'Gotta love the Brits, eh wot?

 

[kallipolis]

As if government regulation of an orphanage guarantees that there will be no child molestation. Or that government regulation of oil rigs operating off shore United States guarantees that corporations comply with such regulations.