Since you don't support the GOP, it clearly doesn't do a very good job of doing that.
Since you don't support the GOP, it clearly doesn't do a very good job of doing that.
Hope is the denial of reality
For those that DO support the GOP, how does this work?Originally Posted by Loki
Do you even care about the answer? You just called Fuzzy a Republican.
Hope is the denial of reality
Fuzzy insinuated he was a registered Republican, because I explicitly asked registered Republicans to explain how they're comfortable with the GOP's vetting process.
Anyone can pipe in with their own view, but it's rather natural to assume they'd say something like, "I'm not a registered Republican, but here's my take on the whole thing...."
BTW, being called a Republican or Conservative isn't meant as some nasty criticism. Neither is being called a Democrat or Progressive. It would just be nice to have a Republican and/or Conservative explain the duplicity of the GOP. Seriously.
If someone wants to start a thread about Today's Democratic Party....to explain the party, including any hypocrisy, they can do that.
You actually expect others to be logical? How ironic.
Hope is the denial of reality
So far you have brought up every thing that any Republican has done across any issue whenever anything comes up.
So what exactly is the anti-Republican issue you have with the video you posted of the Governor of New Jersey defending the appointment of a Muslim lawyer to the judiciary?
It's perfectly "logical" to expect registered Republicans to explain their party, or explain why they're comfortable being registered with a party if it does NOT reflect their beliefs. Nothing ironic about that at all.
Kind of puzzled me as well. Asks a question, then posts a video with one way of answering that question.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Now, I'm not a registered Republican, but here's my take on the whole thing...It's perfectly "logical" to expect registered Republicans to explain their party, or explain why they're comfortable being registered with a party if it does NOT reflect their beliefs. Nothing ironic about that at all.
You're acting like the Republican Party is a monolithic entity. It may be more internally cohesive than Democrats, but it certainly is not completely congeneric.
When did you stop beating your wife?
I didn't. I still win every time.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
For the record, I'm not anti-Republican. But I don't support extremism, or religious fundies, either. Wasn't too long ago that both political parties were asking (imploring) moderate Muslims to step up to the political plate, and expunge fanatical extremists from their midst. Something American Christians or Jews can't seem to do within their own religious groups, or expect of our two political parties.So far you have brought up every thing that any Republican has done across any issue whenever anything comes up.
So what exactly is the anti-Republican issue you have with the video you posted of the Governor of New Jersey defending the appointment of a Muslim lawyer to the judiciary?
Pot, kettle, house, glass, stones, fire, brimstone, etc.
I'm responding to the GOP, as they represent themselves. If they're more internally cohesive than Democrats, I'd have to ask....on what grounds? Based on WHAT? If the GOP wants to register more Republican party members....what the hell are they doing in the "name" of, and on behalf of their small and less intrusive government goals....by obsessing with these strict sexual and social Laws, based on RELIGION?
Are you saying that somebody who is anti-abortion and is working within the legal framework to affect changes, is even remotely comparable to a terrorist/terrorist apologist?For the record, I'm not anti-Republican. But I don't support extremism, or religious fundies, either. Wasn't too long ago that both political parties were asking (imploring) moderate Muslims to step up to the political plate, and expunge fanatical extremists from their midst. Something American Christians or Jews can't seem to do within their own religious groups, or expect of our two political parties.
Pot, kettle, house, glass, stones, fire, brimstone, etc.
This is where I am losing you. You posted a video with a republican representing himself. I think you posted it because he said some very sane stuff to a media crowd hungry for sensation. This guy is a prominent, succesful and popular part of the GOP, judging by the number of times he had to confirm his not running for office (and with the current field, who can blame him?)
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Christie isn't "representative" of the general GOP. That's why I posted his youtube rant. He's the RARE Republican willing to call out the crazies talking about Sharia Law and Constitutional Amendments, or being fearful of Muslims in elected or appointed office.
I am simply asking those who identify (and register) as Republicans to explain their party's confusing, duplicitous, and hypocritical rhetoric. If they want to get more registered Republicans, who think fiscal conservatism is a good way to go....then why are they appealing to social and religious conservatism FIRST?
If anything, they are turning away millions of moderates and independents, who share their ideas about funding but NOT their ideas about people.
No, you were insinuating that Republicans need to kick out religious fundamentalists who support anti-abortion laws like Muslims need to kick out terrorist extremists.I am simply asking those who identify (and register) as Republicans to explain their party's confusing, duplicitous, and hypocritical rhetoric. If they want to get more registered Republicans, who think fiscal conservatism is a good way to go....then why are they appealing to social and religious conservatism FIRST?
If anything, they are turning away millions of moderates and independents, who share their ideas about funding but NOT their ideas about people.
Wanting more people to vote for them while having views you disagree with is confusing, duplicitous, and hypocritical? HOW?I am simply asking those who identify (and register) as Republicans to explain their party's confusing, duplicitous, and hypocritical rhetoric. If they want to get more registered Republicans, who think fiscal conservatism is a good way to go....then why are they appealing to social and religious conservatism FIRST?
If anything, they are turning away millions of moderates and independents, who share their ideas about funding but NOT their ideas about people.
How is having extreme social and religious values part and parcel with being a registered Republican? Or part of being a fiscal conservative?
I don't have to explain my own views, because I'm not a registered Republican. I am asking registered Republicans how they can support their party, even when it doesn't necessarily reflect their own opinions.
Yeah, that means asking why the GOP doesn't kick out the religious fundies, or the "crazies", who'd rather run on so-called Conservative Christian values, over anything else? It's a perfectly legitimate question. Who will answer?
I don't think there are many registered Republican voters on the forum, GGT. Your question has no audience.How is having extreme social and religious values part and parcel with being a registered Republican? Or part of being a fiscal conservative?
I don't have to explain my own views, because I'm not a registered Republican. I am asking registered Republicans how they can support their party, even when it doesn't necessarily reflect their own opinions.
Yeah, that means asking why the GOP doesn't kick out the religious fundies, or the "crazies", who'd rather run on so-called Conservative Christian values, over anything else? It's a perfectly legitimate question. Who will answer?
But using your rubric for fundamentalism, I'd wager a good percentage, perhaps even a plurality of the American people would fall into that category. To wonder why a political party would want to court that voting bloc doesn't seem like a valuable question.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 10-28-2011 at 09:07 PM.
It's not "my rubric".
oops, seems I quoted you before you were done tying?
My kingdom for a non-party system where issues were voted for based on merit, rather than who sponsered it.
Then time wasted justifying parties could be spent on useful stuff.
Hah, just kidding.
Kingdom, my kingdom....would that be Macbeth
or something more like the Hollywood cinematic King and I?
It certainly is.
Close...Richard III.
It certainly is NOT. I am nothing more than a single individual, with no power in either party. I don't create their goals or missions, got nothing to do with them. I don't interact with the Power People on any level, any more than I interact with Hollywood, buying a movie ticket. As an individual, a single person, I'm nothing more or less than that. Me, myself, and I.
However, if I associate with the King (and I), or register with a political party....my voice can be heard, amid the chorus of singers, right? Wait, who's the king of the Republicans or the Democrats? What's that siren song I hear from both parties? Money? Need mo'money? It boils down to MONEY? Donations to PACs and super PACs reflect our voices? Voting for legislators is just like buying a movie ticket? Really?
Well, that's FUBAR. And you damn well know it, Enoch the Red.
You completely missed the point. You are creating several rubrics; you are defining what makes someone a true Scotsman. What makes someone a crazy fundie and how does that differ from your traditional Roman Catholic? What makes someone or some issue representative of the Republican Party as a whole? Who is deciding this if not you?
You have a knack for trying to fit any and all conversations into a mold you want to talk about, instead of actually discussing the topic and points at hand.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 10-28-2011 at 09:57 PM.
Not really. If anything, I'm responding to all/any news sources that put Cain at the top. And asking registered Republicans to explain this phenomenon. These aren't "my" rubrics, but I am asking Republicans to explain theirs.
Others have a knack for ignoring direct questions, avoiding the discussion, or turning it back to me, but that doesn't work because I'm not the one who determined the debate standards. The GOP did that, all on their own.
Still waiting for someone (especially a Republican) to explain the motives of the GOP, their candidates, and their vetting process.
Dread saying that since "some people believe abortion is murder" isn't quite enough.
Lewk. I think Veldan but I could be wrong on that one. And maybe Kane. Everyone else is either a Democrat, some flavor of independent, or entirely unregistered/unaffiliated or not a US citizen.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
