The Texas GOP Platform

[SMM]

Caution: Do not read on an empty stomach, or while drinking beverages.



From TALK TO ACTION: Texas GOP Passes Theocratic Platform (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/20/15922/7012)

The 2008 Platform of the Texas Republican Party -- will make the Religious Right weep for joy. That is, no doubt, because they wrote it. The Religious Right continues to dominate the state party in Texas and the 2008 platform is Exhibit A.
Fortunately, The Texas Freedom Network has sifted through the platform for us -- and found a document that demonstrates that politicaly powerful elements of the the religious right not only have a theocratic agenda -- they have put it in writing.

Here are a few examples from the TFN's just-released report that illustrate my point.

topic: Analysis of Christian Right
The Texas GOP declares that "America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles" and that the party is pledged "toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state."

We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) or other religious symbols."

The Texas GOP supports congressional passage of the so-called "Constitution Restoration Act," which would among other provisions bar the U.S. Supreme Court from hearing and ruling in cases regarding governmental entities or officials who acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." The law would also permit the impeachment and removal of judges who listen to such cases.

The party would forbid judges from determining the constitutionality of laws and end Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom and the Bill of Rights. It calls for the impeachment of judges who, through the subjective judgment of others, "abuse their authority."

Despite problems such as abuse of clients and financial mismanagement that have plagued some programs in the past, Texas Republicans call for less oversight and regulation of faith-based providers of social services.

The Texas GOP would undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes by promoting "intelligent design"/creationism and the so-called "weaknesses" of theories such as evolution. The platform does not acknowledge that evolution is the foundation of all the biological sciences and that scientists have repeatedly debunked arguments about so-called "weaknesses" of the theory.

Texas Republicans "oppose any sex education other than abstinence until heterosexual marriage." That position would prohibit teaching students age-appropriate, medically accurate information about birth control and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

The party platform opposes medical research involving embryonic stem cells even though scientists have identified such research as holding the most promise for treating and curing serious medical conditions such as cancer, spinal cord injuries, juvenile diabetes and Parkinson's disease. Moreover, the party would impose criminal penalties on medical professionals and scientists who engage in such research.

The platform declares that Texas Republicans "deplore all discrimination." Yet the platform also commits Republicans to widespread and systematic discrimination against anyone who is not heterosexual.

By supporting "sodomy" laws, the Texas GOP would have government imprison and/or fine adults who engage in even private, consensual sexual intimacy with someone of the same gender. Texas Republicans also call for removing from federal courts any jurisdiction over cases involving same-gender sexual relations.

The party opposes the right of gay and lesbian parents to adopt or even to have legal custody of their children. The party would also bar visitation rights for gay and lesbian parents unless ordered by a court and supervised under government authority.

Republicans oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to serve in the nation's armed forces.

The Texas GOP supports a federal constitutional amendment that bars a woman from choosing to end her pregnancy. It also supports extending constitutional protections to fetuses, the effect of which would be to criminalize abortion with no exceptions.

The platform calls for a strict candidate litmus test, instructing Republicans to support only candidates who oppose abortion.




I wonder if winning the civil was was such a good idea. There is no question that abolishing slavery was by far the biggest benefit for having done so, and worth the effort for having done so. Beyond that .......

What we read in this transcript, is the agenda of the evangelical extremist movement. But, not just for Texas, or Oklahoma. Their goals are much broader in scope. They are trying to create a theocracy in the entire Country. This will include a re-writing of the Constitution. They are not simply doing this through prayer. As you can see from this article, they plan to attack the courts, and imprison educators, and medical professionals, who do not 'play ball'. They have become well-entrenched, and have been making inroads for several years. They have a militant arm, which has escaped the attention of the MSN. Most Americans are not even aware this is going on. Anyone interested in this subject, should read John Dean's book, "Conservatives Without Conscience", "American Theocracy", by Kevin Phillips and Robert Altemeyer's, "The Authoritarians". These books should be read in the order, Altemeyer, Dean and Phillips. Reading all three of these books, requires an investment in your time. It is probably only suited for those who have a keen interest in the subject.

There are also a great deal of references in the Bibliographies. It is easy to get sidetracked, by following them.

For those of you who do not like reading, but prefer to learn through other media, Christiane Amanpour and CNN produced an outstanding documentary, "God's Warriors (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/gods.warriors/)". I found it frightening.

[themadchemist]

I wonder if winning the civil was was such a good idea. There is no question that abolishing slavery was by far the biggest benefit for having done so, and worth the effort for having done so. Beyond that .......

No, no, now many of the states preserved in the Civil War have turned out to have redeeming qualities. The real mistake was not leaving Texas out of the treaty for the Mexican American War.

[pooky]

So... what if a woman wants to abort a homosexual fetus?

[Gelfin]

So... what if a woman wants to abort a homosexual fetus?

Silly person. A fetus cannot have yet chosen to be homosexual, and no one will ever be choose to be gay again since they aren't letting gay people have unsupervised contact with children to molest them anymore.

Within a few years, Texas and the United States be perfect and 100% homo-free, just like Iran.

[yojitani]

I wouldn't get to carried away by this. Certainly not all, probably not even a slim majority, Texans believe this crap and being a Texan isn't a prerequisite for believing in it either. At any rate, I don't see most of this ever being implemented. It is, rather, a Machiavellian approach to winning the vote.


(They don't say anything about gay grandparents...)

[Iscariot]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the level of education in many parts of your country is nothing short of apalling.

[Thomas Veil]

This so-called "Constitution Restoration Act" doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. If passed, it would immediately be challenged and found to be unconstitutional, even (or especially) if appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the only way these extremists could make it the law of the land would be to actually get the states to pass it as an amendment to the Constitution. Good luck to them with that.

Texas may be run by the American Taliban, but most other states aren't.

[SMM]

No, no, now many of the states preserved in the Civil War have turned out to have redeeming qualities. The real mistake was not leaving Texas out of the treaty for the Mexican American War.

I hope you did not take my comment seriously. Also, I know that the South is/has been very progressive over the 35 years, especially in the urban areas. But, even before then, the South is/has been mainly populated by good, honest and warm people. I think their long tradition with fundamentalist, 'fire and brimstone' Baptist evangelical churches, has been an anchor around the South's neck, socially and politically. I did spend many months in Tennessee. During that time, I made many road trips to some of the other states. Still, my perspective is mainly that of an outsider looking in.

[themadchemist]

I hope you did not take my comment seriously. Also, I know that the South has been very progressive over the 35 years, especially in the urban areas. But, even before then, the South is has been mainly populated by good, honest and warm people. I think their long tradition with fundamentalist, 'fire and brimstone' Baptist evangelical churches, has been an anchor around the South's neck, socially and politically. I did spend many months in Tennessee. During that time, I made many road trips to some of the other states. Still, my perspective is mainly that of an outsider looking in.

Oh dear, I was kidding, too.

But seriously.

Mexican-American War? Maybe not as good a deal as we thought. :p

[solvs]

What, no one's going to defend this?

You know the funniest part? This is considered by some to be a perfectly valid political viewpoint. And despite being completely against most of what America is supposed to actually stand for (also ironic for those who claim to be the most patriotic, not to mention despising Islamic extremists, despite wanting something similar, removing those very freedoms they tout as what makes us better), if someone disputes them they'll be met with comments about how anyone who doesn't follow along with them is some socialist commie liberal or something. The right in some places has gone so far to the right, almost everything seems left. What should be moderate is thought of as left leaning. And even though around 80% of the country is actually wanting to move away from such things, they still act as if they are the moral majority and everyone else is some fringe minority. It would be funny if it weren't for the fact that for some reason they still do have enormous political power, while the opposition still doesn't get that they're the majority and can't actually, I don't know, oppose.

Someone asked in another thread why there seems to be such disdain for the right, which seems to have been been co-opted by the far and religious right, well, this would be why.

[SMM]

This so-called "Constitution Restoration Act" doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. If passed, it would immediately be challenged and found to be unconstitutional, even (or especially) if appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the only way these extremists could make it the law of the land would be to actually get the states to pass it as an amendment to the Constitution. Good luck to them with that.

Texas may be run by the American Taliban, but most other states aren't.

Thomas Veil - would you have thought, back in 2000, that the Bush administration would have succeeded in subverting the Constitution, blatantly thumbing their nose at the law, turning the DoJ into nothing more than a political enforcement arm of the administration, and the other 500 pages of corruption, I know you are aware of, and getting away with it?

I was expecting the worse, but Bushco far exceeded my darkest fears. I do believe the threat from the religious right is serious indeed. I have been studying this for some years now. Their penetration into government, from school boards to the Presidency, is far greater than people realize. One of their greatest points of infiltration is in the military, especially at the high levels of the Pentagon.

I have read your posts here for a long time. They are well thought out and almost always spot on. So, I expect your opinion here is much the same.

[Iscariot]

Someone asked in another thread why there seems to be such disdain for the right, which seems to have been been co-opted by the far and religious right, well, this would be why.

Having disdain for and derisively dismissing any viewpoints associated with are two separate things.

[Badandy]

What, no one's going to defend this?

I'd venture a guess and say that no one on this board will defend this. Honestly, it's utterly ridiculous and I find it hard to believe *anyone* believes in it.

You know the funniest part? This is considered by some to be a perfectly valid political viewpoint.

Ya, by the wackos (which, I might add, make up a sizable portion of our population).

Someone asked in another thread why there seems to be such disdain for the right, which seems to have been been co-opted by the far and religious right, well, this would be why.

I understand, and that's why I'm glad this article pointed out the difference. All I ask is that people realize there are still people in the Republican party who are NOT this, and who think these people are just as crazy as all of you do. That's all I ask.

[solvs]

Having disdain for and derisively dismissing any viewpoints associated with are two separate things.
Nothing wrong with having a different opinion on some issues. But that's not the case here. One can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Just as one can believe something, but forcing it on others when it doesn't affect you is something else entirely. This kind of thing deserves derisive dismissal and disdain. It's not a legitimate political viewpoint. It's extremism. Just as extreme liberalism would be. But despite what some may say, the far left hasn't taken over their party the way the far right has theirs. Not that all conservatives are like that (not that anyone is saying they are), but these are the people currently running their party, which even some of them don't like. It's not the associations nor the associated, it's the inmates currently running their asylum.

Not that I'm fond of the other sides guards falling asleep at their posts either.

I'd venture a guess and say that no one on this board will defend this.
You'd be surprised, in the past we have had people who tried.

Honestly, it's utterly ridiculous and I find it hard to believe *anyone* believes in it.
But they do. And they, or those pandering to them, are the ones in charge. Or at the very least, the vocalist minority. They are who we have problems with most.

Ya, by the wackos (which, I might add, make up a sizable portion of our population).
See, now you're doing it.

I understand, and that's why I'm glad this article pointed out the difference. All I ask is that people realize there are still people in the Republican party who are NOT this, and who think these people are just as crazy as all of you do. That's all I ask.
We know that. Well, most of us know that. That's why most of us would have had a problem with someone saying ALL or just not adding a qualifier. With the qualifier, especially if it can be true, you can say some and be accurate, and sometimes even say most or many, especially adding leaning afterward. It's a distinction, but sadly, at this point fairly fact based. If you aren't like this, you aren't the ones we're talking about when we say these things. Especially when being used to point out another poster making the mistake mentioned.

You may not be like this, but those currently running the GOP, at least in some places like those mentioned in TX, are, and that's who we're talking about.

[Iscariot]

Nothing wrong with having a different opinion on some issues. But that's not the case here. One can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Just as one can believe something, but forcing it on others when it doesn't affect you is something else entirely. This kind of thing deserves derisive dismissal and disdain. It's not a legitimate political viewpoint. It's extremism. Just as extreme liberalism would be. But despite what some may say, the far left hasn't taken over their party the way the far right has theirs. Not that all conservatives are like that (not that anyone is saying they are), but these are the people currently running their party, which even some of them don't like. It's not the associations nor the associated, it's the inmates currently running their asylum.

You're confusing my position on the derisive use of terminology with my position on this issue.

We know that. Well, most of us know that. That's why most of us would have had a problem with someone saying ALL or just not adding a qualifier.

A qualifier doesn't unmake a generalization.

[solvs]

You're confusing my position on the derisive use of terminology with my position on this issue.
Oh, sorry.

A qualifier doesn't unmake a generalization.
Isn't that kind of the definition of a qualifier?

[Badandy]

See, now you're doing it.

Doing what?


We know that. Well, most of us know that.

Well, there are those who aren't, even on this forum. I know you do, and I know many others do, but some do not. I just wanted to let people know that there are still people like me in the party. We aren't all loonies who believe in this garbage from the article.

I'm a Republican.

I'm an atheist, pro-choice in the first trimester, pro gay rights, think you should be able to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, and I'm for cutting spending and fiscal responsibility coupled with lower taxes. We exist.

[atszyman]

"We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) or other religious symbols."

Why do I see this as being something that could backfire greatly? They are careful not to define which religion so as not to infringe on the First Amendment, but that does open the public display of any religion's symbol.

[Badandy]

Why do I see this as being something that could backfire greatly? They are careful not to define which religion so as not to infringe on the First Amendment, but that does open the public display of any religion's symbol.


Ask them how they'd like Qur'an being displayed in public and tell them to revise their goals and aims. Haha.

[aLoC]

The mixing of church and state worked out really well for the Middle East didn't it. Why don't they look at the evidence before they draft their laws.

[leekohler]

The mixing of church and state worked out really well for the Middle East didn't it. Why don't they look at the evidence before they draft their laws.

"Evidence" and "proof" has never been something these people rely on.

[Thomas Veil]

Thomas Veil - would you have thought, back in 2000, that the Bush administration would have succeeded in subverting the Constitution, etc.?...

I have read your posts here for a long time. They are well thought out and almost always spot on. So, I expect your opinion here is much the same.First of all, thank you for the compliment, although I'm hardly the only one here to whom that description might apply. Include yourself in that category.

As to the question which began your post: a firm no -- I did not expect anything like what we got. In fact, I don't think many people were.

I knew it was going to be bad. Remember the kind of crap Bush was into before 9/11? Mostly tax cuts for the rich and more Star Wars (the defense system, not the movie). By itself that would've been harmful enough, but 9/11 took that folly and squared it. I have to say in that respect (and in that respect only), 9/11 was a perverse blessing, in that it seemed to give the green light to every right-wing fanatic to freely promote nation-building, war-mongering, unbridled deficit spending, paranoia, power-grabbing, and a whole host of other conservative evils.

Why would I consider that a blessing? Because without the Republicans trying to turn this country into a Christian Iran, without them going to that extreme, I doubt many Americans would have been appalled enough to want the change they are clamoring for now. In a bizarre way, if Bush and his cronies had just been edging towards their fascist agenda instead of shoving it down our throats the last few years, we might still be heading in that direction.

After the 2004 election I was entertaining, to a degree, the notion of just up and leaving this country. And there are times I still feel that depressed about our future. But the 2006 election and the Obama movement have me feeling a lot more optimistic about our chances now.

I'm not naive; I know the entrenched corpocracy will be tremendously difficult to fight, if it can still be fought at all. But for the first time in a while I have my faith back that the American people do have a basic amount of decency and common sense. The part I'm still not sure about is if they fully appreciate how bad it's gotten, and if they have the guts to make the changes that are necessary.

[Badandy]

Because without the Republicans trying to turn this country into a Christian Iran...


Neocons, please. Thanks.


I'm not naive; I know the entrenched corpocracy will be tremendously difficult to fight, if it can still be fought at all.


As long as you know corporations aren't all bad, then I'm fine with this statement.

But for the first time in a while I have my faith back that the American people do have a basic amount of decency and common sense. The part I'm still not sure about is if they fully appreciate how bad it's gotten, and if they have the guts to make the changes that are necessary.

What does this even mean? The last clause in particular.

[Thomas Veil]

Neocons, please. Thanks.Okay...although there are still too many of them in the party. I don't see as many Eisenhower-style Republicans as I'd like to.

As long as you know corporations aren't all bad, then I'm fine with this statement. No, that would be a gross oversimplification. But the biggest ones have way more influence in Washington than you or I do. And I'm talking both parties.

What does this even mean? The last clause in particular.People know we're going fast in the wrong direction. They even know some of the reasons why, in a general way -- the war, lack of energy policy, etc.

What they probably don't know, for the most part, is that the shirt they're wearing was made by a Sri Lankan or Bangaladeshi who is essentially a prisoner on the isle of Saipan, forced to work 16 hours a day -- and to have an abortion if she gets pregnant -- and that this goes on with the approval of both America's biggest clothing companies and America's government.

They don't know that the federal government has taken away from the governors of the 50 states their sole authority to command their states' National Guard.

They don't know that NAFTA allows corporations to appeal to an international Star Chamber that has the power to trump the sovereignty of our state and local laws.

They just don't know that there's a whole lot of nasty stuff going on out there that they don't even know about yet. I'm sure they'd be upset about it if they did know, but even then, there's a "can't-fight-city-hall" malaise that still prevails.

Obama has stirred up a little hope in a lot of people, but it still doesn't match the kind of national discontent we truly need. We need to be as pissed off as we were in the 1960s, and we're not...yet.

[Badandy]

Okay...although there are still too many of them in the party. I don't see as many Eisenhower-style Republicans as I'd like to.


Agreed.

[blackfox]

I'm a Republican.

I'm an atheist, pro-choice in the first trimester, pro gay rights, think you should be able to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, and I'm for cutting spending and fiscal responsibility coupled with lower taxes. We exist.

I hate to derail the thread by asking:

But what do you find yourself doing politically these days?

I ask because the modern GOP has none of the qualities/priorities you listed above - it hasn't for a while.

Do you think the GOP will reform itself in the wake of the Bush Administration - and if so, do you feel that your brand of Conservatism will have a realistic chance of becoming ascendent?

And what of the Democratic Party? I know it must be anathema to some of your positions, but you must find it ironic that the Clinton Administration was more in line with many of your positions (pretty centrist) than the succeeding Republican one.

If you must choose, I am curious which priorities you would cede and why?

I lament for your position...as I tend to be rather centrist myself on many issues and we probably have more in common than you might think.

[Don't panic]

I'm a Republican.

I'm an atheist, pro-choice in the first trimester, pro gay rights, think you should be able to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, and I'm for cutting spending and fiscal responsibility coupled with lower taxes. We exist.

based on these qualifiers alone, you'd seem to be way closer to the current democratic party than the republican party. by a long shot. sorry :D

[Thomas Veil]

based on these qualifiers alone, you'd seem to be way closer to the current democratic party than the republican party. by a long shot. sorry :DI was actually thinking the same thing...

[Badandy]

I hate to derail the thread by asking:

But what do you find yourself doing politically these days?

Hating both parties, lol. I'll explain further below, but that's a summation of it.

I ask because the modern GOP has none of the qualities/priorities you listed above - it hasn't for a while.

I'm sick of the current GOP. I am thinking about changing my registration to libertarian or independent, but I don't know... What do you all think?

Do you think the GOP will reform itself in the wake of the Bush Administration - and if so, do you feel that your brand of Conservatism will have a realistic chance of becoming ascendent?

No, I really have no hope that it will. The party has been hijacked by authoritarian nut jobs who are ultra religious and seek to impose their dogma on everyone in the nation. It's honestly sickening. They have sacrificed all of what I originally liked by pandering off to other groups, and the ideas they have kept are my least favorite.

And what of the Democratic Party? I know it must be anathema to some of your positions, but you must find it ironic that the Clinton Administration was more in line with many of your positions (pretty centrist) than the succeeding Republican one.

In a race between Bill Clinton and GWB, I would have voted for Clinton.

If you must choose, I am curious which priorities you would cede and why?

I don't know, but I'll tell you what I won't cede. I will not cede my belief that faith based ideas that can not be verified through scientific experimentation should not be taught in science classes. History classes? Sure. Keep it out of science. Most importantly, I will also not go back on my belief that the the wealthy should not be taxed a huge percentage, companies should not be punished simply because of the profits they make, and the idea of freedom of enterprise. I want taxes low and spending low.

I lament for your position...as I tend to be rather centrist myself on many issues and we probably have more in common than you might think.

I don't doubt it.

based on these qualifiers alone, you'd seem to be way closer to the current democratic party than the republican party. by a long shot. sorry :D

and

I was actually thinking the same thing...

I absolutely can't stand the anti-corporatist mentality and class warfare that I believe the Democratic party engages in. I will never support that. I hear John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Howard Dean continually berating the people with money saying they don't pay enough taxes, saying they all exploit workers, saying that they aren't paying their fair share, saying that they don't do work and just sit by pools sipping margaritas. That, over everything, makes me sick.


Ugghh...

[ham_man]

So this is why some ahole tried to burn down Governor Prettyhair's house.

[SMM]

As to the question which began your post: a firm no -- I did not expect anything like what we got. In fact, I don't think many people were.

After the 2004 election I was entertaining, to a degree, the notion of just up and leaving this country. And there are times I still feel that depressed about our future. But the 2006 election and the Obama movement have me feeling a lot more optimistic about our chances now.

I'm not naive; I know the entrenched corpocracy will be tremendously difficult to fight, if it can still be fought at all. But for the first time in a while I have my faith back that the American people do have a basic amount of decency and common sense. The part I'm still not sure about is if they fully appreciate how bad it's gotten, and if they have the guts to make the changes that are necessary.



For me, no matter how bad things things get with the Legislative Branch, and/or the Administrative Branch, we always had three last lines of defense to protect the Country.

The Judiciary:

In the past, even conservative judges, could set politics aside, and do their jobs responsibly. Not all of course. When they donned their robes, they set personal opinion aside and ruled on the merits of the case. It was often joked about, a conservative president would appoint a conservative judge, and when he got on the bench, he ruled like a liberal. This happened to Nixon on several occasions, including their ruling he had to surrender the tapes. So, the President picked the new appointees from the very bottom of the political barrel, men who were so conservative, they would always rule in-line with the administration. I do not think we have to dig too deep, or go very far back in time. The recent ruling over the Gitmo prisoners, is a perfect example, especially Scalia's dissenting opinion. He argued that national security was more important than Constitutional rights. This is not in the purview of the Courts purpose. Their primary function is to interpret the Constitution and rule on those issues. Yet here he is, ruling on foreign policy and national security, while completely ignoring the Constitution. Yet, it is not just SCOTUS, which has been compromised. It has spread throughout the entire federal judiciary, especially the appellate courts. So, our first line of defense is basically gone.

Department of Justice:
Even though DoJ is part of the Administration branch, in the past it has operated independently. Even during the Watergate years, AG Mitchell was unable to prevent them from doing their jobs professionally. That was mainly due to the fact that the department was mainly ran by career professionals. Bushco solved this problem by firing many of them, and replacing them with 'politically correct' people. New applicants were screened for their political persuasion. TPMMuckraker (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obscure_liberal_leanings_disqualified.php) has been reporting heavily on this. There is an ongoing Congressional investigation into this. I am not going to spend any time describing what the DoJ has become. It is common knowledge to everyone who stays reasonably informed. The bottomline is we have lost our second line of defense.

The independent Media:
The transformation, which has taken place within the MSM staggers the imagine. The biggest change has been in the major networks. I was dismayed by how they climbed into bed with the Bush administration for selling the war, and largely ignored many important stories. If their goal was/is to keep the American public in the dark, well they have certainly succeeded. For me (and countless others), this became obvious, beginning in 2002, and continues to this very day. I also noted the major 'liberal', and usually reliable newspapers and periodicals, like the NYT and WaPo, were following suit. There were reporters, who maintained their professional standards, but their stories ran on the inner pages, and very rarely made the front page. There was one news source got the Iraq story correct, Knight-Ridder (now McClatchy). However, they have no outlets in New York, or Washington. So, their stories went mainly unnoticed. Today, there have been few improvements by the Networks. Our last line of defense has been seriously crippled.

A new line of defense:
You can probably guess where this is going. It is what we are doing right now. The Internet has enabled, and facilitated the ability of the ordinary citizen to have a voice and effect change in our government. I do not think anyone could have predicted how fast, and powerful this was going to grow. I used to Google stories I was looking for. However, I noticed completely new stories, I was completely unaware of. In 2006, I discovered the blogosphere. I was amazed by the rich content that was out there. I turned-off the TV and never looked back. I have noticed the continued growth of the blogosphere, just in the past two years. And, I have noticed something else. Early on, the blogosphere was mainly information sharing and discussion. Now, there are several sites, and organizations, which have an 'active' agenda. MoveOn and ActBlue are two, which immediately come to mind. Both of them are primarily focused on direct action. Even though they are trying to accomplish the same basic goals (helping progressive candidates get elected, MoveOn is a little more 'grassroots' oriented, while ActBlue is more 'nationally' focused. They compliment each other very well. I see this as a clear sign as to the evolution of the blogosphere (we need a shorter name for this). I believe we are only seeing beginning of what the BOS can do. The song, "Power to the People" has come alive again. The Rovies tied up the MSM, and dismissed the importance of the Internet. It did not fit into any of their 'political models'. They still have not figured it out. They know that millions of Americans are ignoring the Networks, and getting their news on-line. They also realize that many of the stories are from the BBC and other international sources, which they have no control over. They still have not figured how to deal with us, and it is unlikely they ever will. This coupled with the progressive movement sweeping the Country, my hope has vastly improved.

With all of that being said, I too have been looking to live abroad. I have been very active in researching the possibilities. My main focus has been on Mexico, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Nicaragua. I have gone so far as to contact realtors, banks and attorneys. My wife and I are going to Costa Rica, and Nicaragua, in the early Fall. We are going to spend a month, looking at various properties, and seeing how we like it. If McCain gets elected, we will be tidying up our affairs, transferring our assets to a bank in the Caymans. If Obama wins, we will do the same think, but at a less frantic pace.

[blackfox]

...SNIP...


I absolutely can't stand the anti-corporatist mentality and class warfare that I believe the Democratic party engages in. I will never support that. I hear John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Howard Dean continually berating the people with money saying they don't pay enough taxes, saying they all exploit workers, saying that they aren't paying their fair share, saying that they don't do work and just sit by pools sipping margaritas. That, over everything, makes me sick.


Ugghh...

In fairness (although perhaps unfair), I think that position is a natural (and politically expedient) reaction to some notable Corporate excesses. While the majority of corporations are actually quite small, many of the larger exhibit the natural extension of the general amorality of the capitalist business model - be it outsourcing and the related bribery to keep certain businesses in certain areas - or lack of regard for communities/environments or consequences - or just plain old inefficiency and greed.


As far as class warfare goes, well both parties can be guilty of that. Where we might diverge in opinion is that I believe that the inequity inherent in a Capitalist system, needs to be corrected by a non-market force - in order to strike a maximum utility from the populace. I might imagine that your position would be that the entrepreneurs and other drivers of the economy should have the smallest amount of non-market intervention to encourage productivity.

I think what you might try and understand Badandy, is that while many labor under the misconception(s) that the "rich" folk lead an easy, carefree effortless life, that there are also significant misconceptions about the "poor" in that they are lazy or shiftless or vultures on the system. In both cases, there is limited validity to the claims - based on a minority in each, but in both cases, the majority suffers.

One could argue that there is an interesting irony to both "our" positions - That in my zeal to allow the bottom % of society meaningful opportunity, access and contribution to the economy - that I am willing to squeeze some of the engines of the same economy - while in your belief in unfettered capitalism, allows for an inefficient market by allowing a sizeable % of the populace to not fully contribute to the system.

Lastly, considering the ascendence of Corporate culture in the Political realm (as befits a Capitalist country) - I would think that many of your concerns about the Democratic Party might prove unfounded. Sure, they may speak the populist rhetoric - but they recognize the political importance of a vibrant economy too - it's not like anyone is advocating full-blown socialism.

[KingYaba]

based on these qualifiers alone, you'd seem to be way closer to the current democratic party than the republican party. by a long shot. sorry :D

Libertarian, not Democrat :rolleyes:. . This GOP Platform is good news for me and my Libertarian Party of Texas. :) Just one more thing to argue against.

[Beric]

Wow, if America was like this we would not have so many problems. Instead we continue to take the rapid road down to immorality and anti-Christianity. Makes me want to live in Texas, not the Bay Area.

[SMM]

Wow, if America was like this we would not have so many problems. Instead we continue to take the rapid road down to immorality and anti-Christianity. Makes me want to live in Texas, not the Bay Area.

You are joking, right?

[Badandy]

Wow, if America was like this we would not have so many problems. Instead we continue to take the rapid road down to immorality and anti-Christianity. Makes me want to live in Texas, not the Bay Area.

Oh please tell me you're joking. Please please please.


EDIT: SMM and I agree on this, let us rejoice.

[Don't panic]

Libertarian, not Democrat :rolleyes:. . This GOP Platform is good news for me and my Libertarian Party of Texas. :) Just one more thing to argue against.

:) i realize that. it was always clear from hs contributions in multiple threads.
but my comment was that, among the current two major parties, and based on that one post, his positions put him way closer to the democrats.

from my perspective, which is admittedly liberal, i actually see the vast majority of the democratic party, which includes obama and both clintons, as a moderately conservative force on most issues, especially in economics, when you look how what the party actually doe.

[leekohler]

Wow, if America was like this we would not have so many problems. Instead we continue to take the rapid road down to immorality and anti-Christianity. Makes me want to live in Texas, not the Bay Area.

You mean you wouldn't have any problems. The rest of us who don't believe the same things you do would be having a lot of problems. By all means, feel free to move.

[Much Ado]

$5 says he's not joking.

[leekohler]

$5 says he's not joking.

Of course he isn't. There are a plenty of people who would like nothing more than to turn this country into a Christian Iran. I'm not even going to start to tell you what some of them have planned for us homos.

[Teh Don Ditty]

I'll raise to $10 he's not joking.

@Lee - Oooo! oooo! I know what they're gonna do! It's going to be something along the lines of Nazi Germany! What do I win!!

[leekohler]

I'll raise to $10 he's not joking.

@Lee - Oooo! oooo! I know what they're gonna do! It's going to be something along the lines of Nazi Germany! What do I win!!

You win nothing. It'll be along the lines of what they do to us in Iran.

[Teh Don Ditty]

You win nothing. It'll be along the lines of what they do to us in Iran.

Isn't it the same thing?

btw - you know that I don't condone any of that right?

[leekohler]

Isn't it the same thing?

btw - you know that I don't condone any of that right?

Of course. I simply don't see anything funny about people like Beric.

[Teh Don Ditty]

Of course. I simply don't see anything funny about people like Beric.

Good point.

The Texas GOP Platform is down right frightening. Honestly, you think one would become "immune" to it after these past 8 years. It seem to just get worse as time goes on.

[leekohler]

Good point.

The Texas GOP Platform is down right frightening. Honestly, you think one would become "immune" to it after these past 8 years. It seem to just get worse as time goes on.

There will never be a shortage of those who think they are right and everyone should be the same. They'll never go away.

[Teh Don Ditty]

There will never be a shortage of those who think they are right and everyone should be the same. They'll never go away.

Thus further holding back the advancement of society.

[SMM]

$5 says he's not joking.

I think you correct, Much Ado. I went and looked at previous posts. Unless he is joking in each one, he is very conservative. He is a student, I think.

Samples:

If we would just drill, the prices would go down. But the environmentalists, in their religious crusade to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, enjoy high gas prices, ignoring the fact that they hurt the nation's poor more than anyone else. And the high taxes on gas and on the oil corporations only increase the price at the pump more.

It's a simple case of supply and demand. Both environmentalists and the oil companies WANT high gas prices. They help the oil companies increase profits (supply and demand), and they help the agenda of the environmentalists, to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

To believe in the Big Bang, or that we evolved from simple life, does require faith. We have never observed it. Scientists have observed fossils and other evidence nowadays, but we can never know what really happened. We can only make a guess. My personal belief is that Evolution is a religion...

The only reason Bush is hated is that the liberal media has done an extremely effective job at what it is best at, attacking conservatives.
Try reading this article: Bush's America: 100 Percent Al-Qaida Free Since 2001 by Ann Coulter

And so forth. If he reads Coultergeist, that pretty well sums it up.

[Badandy]

I think you correct, Much Ado. I went and looked at previous posts. Unless he is joking in each one, he is very conservative.


Please, for my sake, let's call him a neocon, right-wing evangelist, or at least something else.


In other news, I especially liked his post dealing with his view that evolution is a religion.

[aquajet]

You win nothing. It'll be along the lines of what they do to us in Iran.

Beric would be much happier there if s/he could only get over that Xtianity thing. I suspect s/he'll be disappointed with TX as there's plenty of gay sex to go around here too.

[Much Ado]

Samples:


I wept.

Beric would be much happier there if s/he could only get over that Xtianity thing. I suspect s/he'll be disappointed with TX as there's plenty of gay sex to go around here too.

And in Iran, too, whatever Ahmadinejad does to try and stop it.

[KingYaba]

All of you in the Democratic party should recruit Kinky Friedman to run for governor in Texas in 2010. If he gets the votes Chris Bell and Friedman received last time, he would win. I voted for Kinky in '06 and I would vote for him again in 2010.

[SMM]

Please, for my sake, let's call him a neocon, right-wing evangelist, or at least something else.


In other news, I especially liked his post dealing with his view that evolution is a religion.

Sorry, Badandy. I will try to make it a point to remember that. I am afraid I am locked into the John Dean, Robert Altemeyer definition of Conservative. The term by itself is neutral, not having any value judgement. Within conservatives is where one finds the definitions for the incredible number of specific groups, like neocons and evangelicals. In Dean's book, Conservatives Without Conscience, one of the early chapters, he breaks down the numerous descriptions for each of the groups. It is a lengthy chapter, and when I was done listening to it (books on tape), my head was swimming. I took a break and digested what I had learned. I then listened to it again, with roughly the same result. I listened to it again, and this time retained enough to continue on. As I recall, there were over twenty-five main groups, with many more smaller splinter groups.

I was surprised to learn that Pat Buchanan, Newt, Kristol, Dobson, Goldwater and Dole (among many others) were not the same type of conservative.

But, I am getting sidetracked here. I guess I never stopped to realize that few people know the difference (often subtle) between the various conservative groups. That, plus the fact, in everyday usage, we have lumped all of the groups into just a handful of main groups. So, I will make an effort to use the more accepted definitions. Deal?

[Badandy]

Sounds good to me :cool:


With all those 25 groups and sub-groups of conservatives, do you think John Dean is simply reading too much into it, or do you think he can actually distinguish and make valuable insights into those people who might differ in only very small ways politically from each other?

[solvs]

Doing what?
Calling a sizable portion of our population wackos ;) (true or not).

Well, there are those who aren't, even on this forum. I know you do, and I know many others do, but some do not. I just wanted to let people know that there are still people like me in the party. We aren't all loonies who believe in this garbage from the article.

I'm a Republican.
Then they aren't talking about you when they say many or even most.

I'm an atheist, pro-choice in the first trimester, pro gay rights, think you should be able to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, and I'm for cutting spending and fiscal responsibility coupled with lower taxes. We exist.
Most of us do know that, but you aren't considered part of the current Republicans in charge, nor the vocal minority, so I would say most of us would consider you an independent, or classic "conservative" (ironic since you would be closer to what the party actually says it stands for).

Do you think the GOP will reform itself in the wake of the Bush Administration - and if so, do you feel that your brand of Conservatism will have a realistic chance of becoming ascendent?
It kinda has to. The GOP is screwed right now, and they know it. Maybe some will cling to the far right, some even thinking they should embrace it even more, but as we've seen by the recent ads in OR by one of the Republicans running there, who's already a centrist, (for those who don't know, his ad touts his legislation with Obama) some may even tilt more to the left after the primaries to win the general. Though that didn't seem to help Lincoln Chaffee last time around, since he didn't get the support of the GOP, and the Dems and Indies didn't really support him either.

And what of the Democratic Party?
They've already moved to the middle, or even right on some things, though most of the liberals still support them as opposed to the GOP.

In other news, I especially liked his post dealing with his view that evolution is a religion.
Religion is based on belief, evolution is based on scientific theory.

All of you in the Democratic party should recruit Kinky Friedman to run for governor in Texas in 2010. If he gets the votes Chris Bell and Friedman received last time, he would win. I voted for Kinky in '06 and I would vote for him again in 2010.
They should, but they won't. Some in the party even want to give up on the state all together. Obama is picking up Dean's ideas though, and going all out for all 50 states (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11320.html). He has the money, might as well.

With all those 25 groups and sub-groups of conservatives, do you think John Dean is simply reading too much into it, or do you think he can actually distinguish and make valuable insights into those people who might differ in only very small ways politically from each other?
He does, that's actually the point of the book. He's not saying all of them. I'm guessing he realized this after leaving the Nixon administration. Ariana Huffington's book makes the same points, about how the GOP has been hijacked.

People like Beric scare the bejesus out of me too, no pun intended, but the hit and runs give me hope that it's at best joking and at worst it's just trolling.

[SMM]

Sounds good to me :cool:


With all those 25 groups and sub-groups of conservatives, do you think John Dean is simply reading too much into it, or do you think he can actually distinguish and make valuable insights into those people who might differ in only very small ways politically from each other?

There is no question in my mind about it, Badandy. He spends considerable time to carefully describe their differences, including very detailed references and sources. Like I said, I read through many of those sources. When combined with the various types of authoritarians, associated with the various groups, the differences are even more pronounced. Besides, Dean is not my sole source on this. I found the subject fascinating. I spent a few weeks studying this in depth. It is actually an established field of study.

[Badandy]

Religion is based on belief, evolution is based on scientific theory.

But wut about inteligint desine?!


People like Beric scare the beJesus out of me too, no pun intended, but the hit and runs give me hope that it's at best joking and at worst it's just trolling.


There, fixed. :cool:

[solvs]

But wut about inteligint desine?!
Not science, no matter what they call it. ;)

There, fixed.
Lower case j, no pun intended. :p

[solvs]

Could be worse, could be Louisiana:

Louisiana passes first antievolution "academic freedom" law (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080627-louisiana-passes-first-antievolution-academic-freedom-law.html)

"Academic freedom". Another in a long list of ironically named legislation. And this guy is on the short list to be VP. :shudder:

[leekohler]

Could be worse, could be Louisiana:

Louisiana passes first antievolution "academic freedom" law (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080627-louisiana-passes-first-antievolution-academic-freedom-law.html)

"Academic freedom". Another in a long list of ironically named legislation. And this guy is on the short list to be VP. :shudder:

Dumb ********** hicks. :mad: I bet you that one gets challenged very soon.