so are you saying that black muslims, hispanics, and asians will demand their own state when the price of goods rise? or are you saying racist whites will cut off a chunk of the us and lock them in there? why would the racist whites give minorities a chunk of the us instead of just kicking them out?
maybe in YOUR mind the fact that the us wil split up into seperate states basded on race as a consequence of higher prices for goods is a logical conclusion, but that just goes to show how fucked up your logic is.
Not just when the price of goods rises. When the USA economy collapses due to total disengagement with PRC on the economic front. Which was the line of argument Hobart pursued stating that USA would feel little effect if it choice to “cut off” economic ties with PRC over ROC territorial issue.
As for ethnic supremacist that advocate the separation of USA into “racially” pure nation states, you really need to research their position.
The site above has a small list of secessionist movements in the USA. If the federal government through the FBI and other law enforcements did not crack down on some of them in the past 50 years. USA might have been broken down into various nation-states in the 60’s.
So the what if USA economic stability was not secure. How would the federal government enacts its interest in keeping the Union? No money, no enforcement.
Given the fact that many of the White and Black supremacy group are also grounded in religion. Would it be surprising to learn that the presidential campaigns have “narrow-cast” to these groups to illicit their support. Thereby reflecting their concerns to garner their support. Implying legitimacy via pandering for votes.
We live in a republican-style democracy. That means that people vote for representatives that reflect their views, interests and needs. Modern-day liberals seem to think that views that come from religious foundations should be somehow “banned”. Only views that are somehow santized from faith can be considered. Only people that say, “my faith is checked at the door when I serve as a public official” can be considered for public service.
Well, that wouldn’t be a democracy. That would be liberals imposing THEIR RELIGION on others by circumventing the ballot box.
Yes folks, “liberal-ISM” is just that: an “ISM”. Just like “conservatISM” is an “ISM”. “ChristianITY” is an “ITY”. If liberals want to restrict all relgious consideration from public policy, then perhaps we should equally sanitize “liberalism” from consideration.
The plain truth: YOU LOST! And you lost with a pretty well-oiled democracy, the envy of the world. You can blame the 51% as stupid. You can blame them as hicks. You can isult them all day and try your best to deny them their voice as citizens … but you’re only going to continue the denial and alienation.
You have to try to win the hearts and minds of people in the arena of ideas, instead of insulting them and telling them that their motivations for their votes are invalid.
The Aprimo theory is interesting. It reminds me of a speech written by a Puritan preacher that the ‘sexual pent-up-edness’ of the Puritans may have accounted for a rising rate in the cases of bestiality reported. In other words, you can dam something up but it’s got to burst somewhere.
As for the absurd notion that the US was in danger of fragmenting into different nation-states during the 60’s, at no time was there a serious desire by any mass-movement groups to secede from the US rather than try to win power by political action. The Black Panthers were a political group but they did not seriously create blueprints for a ‘black state.’ That’s the beautiful thing that I miss about the US: you can go to most areas and there is some degree (not much as would be desired) of integration. You can be any race and people will assume you’re American if you speak good (that is, American accent ahem ahem ) English. The US, being tied to the PRC more than to Taiwan (Europe actually stands up more for Taiwan than the US), realizes its future economic strength depends on alliance with China and will not collapse. Despite all the doomsday preachers the US’s economy will not take a sharp dive. The world is FAR too dependent on US-based corporations for that to happen anytime soon. Bush will certainly do some damage with his cowboy shenanigans, but he’s limited to 4-years, which isn’t enough to sink the ship.
~Ahem~ Not all people with “strong” religious values or faith are conservatives and having a weak faith does not make you liberal. I am a Christian, full of imperfections and moral failings to be sure, but still, there it is. I am emphatically NOT a religious conservative. Jerry Falwell would blanch if there were more like me in his pews.
George Bush Sr is also no religious conservative. It’s Jr that joined the evangelical stream…[/quote]
Yes, I agree with you Mao. BUT, liberalism (as an idelology) and the Democratic Party has been hijacked almost in full by those that ridicule those of faith. Even the very concept of “good and evil”, “right and wrong” are taboo subjects. Just look at this thread. People are scared that those of faith cast their votes as people of faith. Then, look at their self-professed political slant … Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the left is (and has been) hostile to towards people of faith, especailly Christianity.
Didn’t used to be this way in the Democratic Party. It used to be as far back as the Great Depression that Democrats fought on political ideas that didn’t exclude faith from the disucssion. However, now the party has been hijacked by those who can only advance their social utopia agenda by irradicating faith. Faith in God is opposed to faith in the State.
~Ahem~ Not all people with “strong” religious values or faith are conservatives and having a weak faith does not make you liberal. I am a Christian, full of imperfections and moral failings to be sure, but still, there it is. I am emphatically NOT a religious conservative. Jerry Falwell would blanch if there were more like me in his pews.
George Bush Sr is also no religious conservative. It’s Jr that joined the evangelical stream…[/quote]
Yes, dear, I don’t think of myself as “liberal” just because I don’t follow any particular religion. And you’re right: perhaps “proselytizing fundamentalist” would have been a better way to describe the group I refer to than “most with ‘strong’ religious values or faith.”
But the fact is that it is the more radical faction that has essentially, in many ways, won the election.
I like to think of myself as progressive, and I know those who go to church regularly can be as well. But the people we’re talking about here want, for example, to take the country back to a time when Roe v. Wade didn’t exist. If that’s not the opposite of “progress,” then I don’t know what is. And who knows what’s next - will they go after Brown v. Board of Education, too?
And by the way, Pinesay, the system we’ve got in the U.S. can barely be considered a “democracy.” How well-represented do you think Buddhists, Muslims, Animists, Hindus, Taoists, agnostics, aetheists,etc. will feel when their only two choices are trying to outdo each other in their faith to a western ‘God’?
[quote=“aprimo”]But the fact is that it is the more radical faction that has essentially, in many ways, won the election.
I like to think of myself as progressive, and I know those who go to church regularly can be as well. But the people we’re talking about here want, for example, to take the country back to a time when Roe v. Wade didn’t exist. If that’s not the opposite of “progress,” then I don’t know what is. And who knows what’s next - will they go after Brown v. Board of Education, too?[/quote]
Who is to say that Roe v. Wade was a progressive instance? Perhaps some progress isn’t desirable and that certain things should remain status quo?
The country back during Roe is a much different one now. I feel that people engaged in this sort of Christian fundamentalist behavior are fighting a losing battle. No one will roll-back Roe and the right to an abortion. The politicians will play to those sentiments but that’s all. The Supreme Court won’t reverse itself and there’s not enough political muscle to change it via constitutional amendment or otherwise.
Brown v. Bd of Ed. has been rolled back by natural social forces. People naturally segregate. You can’t make them not segregate. It proves that courts should not be involved in social (re-)engineering.
I don’t know if you can call that a “fact”. In my opinion, calling the 51% (or the percentage that tiped the election) radical fundamentalists is a loosers way of “doing spin” to hold some kind of moral high-ground in the face of defeat. Deep inside, Democrats know what the issue was this election season: national security. Trying to spin the election as a bunch of hay-seed hicks against gays totally misses why Bush won and Kerry lost. However, it is fine with me if the Democrat Party leadership wants to continue down that path. Totally fine with me.
I may not agree with overturning either of these examples of yours, but what if the majority of the country did want to? That would be part of a democratic process.
What???
I know too many immigrants from around the world that would say you are full of it. America continues to be a place where tons of Buddhists, Muslims, etc. etc. come to escape the torture, genocide, fear and downright dog-eat-dog conditions they came from. Heck, in Africa, Blacks enslave Blacks and slaughter them worse than farm-animals. I know a lot of Iranians, Cubans, Chinese, Russians, Africans … don’t have too many complains about America. Many of these immigrants were in line at the Ronald Reagan Memorial in Simi Valley to pay tribute with tears in their eyes to the man that called for freedom in their own countries when “others” made excuses for the oppression.
First, in my previous post I referred to America as a republican-stye democracy. CIVICS LESSON 101: This is where you vote for people to represent you in a law-making process. You vote for people that reflect your needs, concerns, issues, etc. And quite frankly, America is the best example in thousands of years of world history of building in safeguards for minorities in the face of the will of the majority. The will of the majority is important. And protecting the weak is important too. It is a fine balancing act that, overall, has produced amazing results in the American experiment.
Second, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t ask for policy change in your favor … and when you loose, then claim that America doesn’t really have a true democracy. That’s just immature. But that is what’s going on in the post-election spin. Do you really think the Democratic leadership would be saying that our democracy is flawed if John Kerry got 51% of the vote??? No way. They’d call it a “mandate”. They’d call it “the people have spoken.” "No election fraud. " “No reason to be concerned.” “Just the democratic process at work as it should.” They’d have big parties at the White House with the Hollywood elite. It would be one big orgy of “moral” victory for them.
Please, spare me. This kind of spin is tired. Whenever we don’t get our way, we throw a tantrum and cliam the ballot box was rigged.
[quote=“Yellow Cartman”][quote=“aprimo”]But the fact is that it is the more radical faction that has essentially, in many ways, won the election.
I like to think of myself as progressive, and I know those who go to church regularly can be as well. But the people we’re talking about here want, for example, to take the country back to a time when Roe v. Wade didn’t exist. If that’s not the opposite of “progress,” then I don’t know what is. And who knows what’s next - will they go after Brown v. Board of Education, too?[/quote]
Who is to say that Roe v. Wade was a progressive instance? Perhaps some progress isn’t desirable and that certain things should remain status quo?
The country back during Roe is a much different one now. I feel that people engaged in this sort of Christian fundamentalist behavior are fighting a losing battle. No one will roll-back Roe and the right to an abortion. The politicians will play to those sentiments but that’s all. The Supreme Court won’t reverse itself and there’s not enough political muscle to change it via constitutional amendment or otherwise.
Brown v. Bd of Ed. has been rolled back by natural social forces. People naturally segregate. You can’t make them not segregate. It proves that courts should not be involved in social (re-)engineering.[/quote]
[quote=“pinesay”][quote=“aprimo”]I know too many immigrants from around the world that would say you are full of it. America continues to be a place where tons of Buddhists, Muslims, etc. etc. come to escape the torture, genocide, fear and downright dog-eat-dog conditions they came from. Heck, in Africa, Blacks enslave Blacks and slaughter them worse than farm-animals. I know a lot of Iranians, Cubans, Chinese, Russians, Africans … don’t have too many complains about America. Many of these immigrants were in line at the Ronald Reagan Memorial in Simi Valley to pay tribute with tears in their eyes to the man that called for freedom in their own countries when “others” made excuses for the oppression.
[/quote][/quote]
I agree with some of your ideas: the US has been a success and a hospitable refuge for many millions, yet regarding Ronald Reagan, you can find just as many people who lost family members or were shot themselves during his militant tenure. Please don’t use Reagan as a symbol of our country when in many ways he symbolizes the worst.
Yglesias is certainly not the first (or even the fiftieth) to write on the “Social conservatives as dumb pawns of the fiscal conservatives” theme, but I found this article more interesting than most. Although I disagree with him on a number of points, I still get the impression that he making a sincere effort voice his strong (very strong – see paragraph 5) disagreement with certain ideas, without spewing hatred and venom at the people who hold those ideas. In my book, that approach goes a long way toward making one’s arguments worth thinking about.
Now that you’ve brought this back to my attention…
I’ve had awhile to think about this. While I agree that secularism may rightly be categorized as an “ideology” just like many religions of the world, there is still, to me, a factor that sets it apart, quite glaringly. One is not, as a member of a secular group, required or expected to believe in the existence of one or more other-wordly/Biblical/mythical beings and/or forces.
I think it’s proper that a government sticks to an “ideology” that puts emphasis on facts that we have before us, on the kinds of knowledge we’ve been able to glean from science. For me, understanding this kind of knowledge - whether it’s related to the biological, physical, or social sciences - doesn’t take the kind of emotional-mental leap that is required for adherence to and faith in some religions. And because I think it’s more reasonable to expect the findings of a scientific study to be comprehended by most people than the existence of God to be believed by most people, I believe a government over a multifarious population should…well, stick to the facts, so to speak.
But anyhow, the secularists may not need to worry so much after all. In a Nov. 11, 2004, story in The Sacramento Bee, Bush was quoted as saying: “I will be your president regardless of your faith. No president should ever try to impose religion on our society.”
Even Karl Rove has been shying away from verbally congratulating evangelical Christians for handing Bush his re-election victory. Looks to me like a case of use 'em and lose 'em.
) English. The US, being tied to the PRC more than to Taiwan (Europe actually stands up more for Taiwan than the US), realizes its future economic strength depends on alliance with China and will not collapse. Despite all the doomsday preachers the US’s economy will not take a sharp dive. The world is FAR too dependent on US-based corporations for that to happen anytime soon. Bush will certainly do some damage with his cowboy shenanigans, but he’s limited to 4-years, which isn’t enough to sink the ship.