The republican party is like Abu Hamza [on abstinence]

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Eraserhead, May 22, 2009.

  1. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    I was reading the Guardian this morning at breakfast and I read their article on the daughters of the Republican party presidential candidates at the last election and saw this interesting point:

    (source)

    To be honest the Guardians position to me seems to be fairly reasonable. Which is quite shocking when the republican party is still a fairly major party in US politics. To me it shows how extreme the republican party has become over the past eight years.

    Anyway thoughts? Is the Guardian right, or wrong?
     
  2. remmy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    #2
    I have often seen similarities between the two of right wing politics in the US and more extremist Muslims.

    The belief in religious texts as an excuse for their politics, war and violence.

    The attempt to control their own people, with force if required.

    The attempt to force their ideas, and way of being on people around the world.

    The idea that using force will win out over diplomacy.
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    They're called the American Taliban for a reason...
     
  4. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #4
    Extremism is extermism (to make a gross generalization)

    Wrapped in a turban, yamica, or whatever christians wear (suit and tie?) or even an eco terroist...it pretty much all smells the same.
     
  5. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #5
    They reinforce their views with religion, they do not act on it. We have never went to war because God said so.

    Both parties do this.

    Both parties do this.

    Force is often needed in the face of irrational nations.
     
  6. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #6
  7. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
  8. Eraserhead thread starter macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Can you explain the difference between the two?
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Just out of curiosity, do you have any proof that Abu Hamza's struggle is because God said so, and that he isn't simply using religion to reinforce an existing of-this-world complaint?
     
  10. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #10
    What a stupid article and idiotic thread. If this isn't considered trolling based on MR's definition of the term, I don't know what is. What a few daughters of presidential candidates say and do does not define the political party of their parents. Try introducing a thread slamming democrats with a lead-in article of this low quality, and the mods would kill it in a minute. Maybe I should try it out--perhaps I will start a thread based on some political hack's musings about the socialist leanings of the current administration, and see how long it takes for it to get shut down. So much for upholding the claimed quality standards MR sets for cited sources used to initiate threads in PRSI.
     
  11. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #11
    How about you attack the Guardian article and poster's positions in this thread rather than yet again lashing out at your perceived repression? It might be more constructive. If you can reasonably demonstrate that the parallels drawn by the author (and posters here) are utter bunk I'm sure the mods will be more than happy to lock this down.
     
  12. AceWilfong macrumors regular

    AceWilfong

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    I concede...

    :eek:Theirs are even battier than ours.
     
  13. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #13
    This isn't how its played when a thread of this poor quality is started and sways against Obama and democrats. How about I post something by Dick Morris or some other Obama antagonist and see if that survives? The democrat affiliates here would be calling me a troll and bashing Morris as a right-wing ideologue. Few of them would take such a passive view as you have with this thread, and would focus instead on the trolling proclivities of the OP. How about some balance here?
     
  14. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #14
    Again, how about you attack the presuppositions of the thread instead of resorting to culture wars?

    You don't see any parallels between governments that are strongly influenced by religious dogma? You don't see how this could be a conflict of interest?
     
  15. DoNoHarm macrumors 65816

    DoNoHarm

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Maine
    #15
    I think whenever one argues that something supercedes logic, reason, and rational explination, it starts to smell that way...
     
  16. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #16
    WTF are you talking about? Are you sincerely telling me that you actually find anything of value in this cited article? What does this little ditty about a couple of barely post-pubescent women have to do with governments and any influence that religious dogma may have on them? Can we raise the bar here a little bit? I'm not asking for scholastic perfection, only a little critical thinking.
     
  17. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #17
    From what I can tell in this thread you're after nothing more than to bolster your own perceived persecution complex at the hands of macrumors moderators. You seem to take personal offense that a synthetic political wing is being criticised (harshly or not). One might say that you're somewhat proven what this thread had ended up talking about. That you hold a fervent loyalty to an abstract political construct that that you'll defend with disproportional aggression.

    If you're after raising the bar tirades aren't going to help. You could easily read what others had had posted and discussed that or indeed taken the thread in any direction you wanted. Or you could have calmly dismissed the article for whatever reasons you find it lacking merit. In fact you still have that opportunity.
     
  18. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #18
    Since you seem to be defending this trolling, perhaps you would be willing to point out specific parts of the article that you feel have meaning and that move the subject of the discussion (whatever it is) forward in any way. I would be especially interested in how you feel the exemplars of the Palin and McCain daughters and what they believe, say, and do help define the republican party generally. Is it your position that this sample of two is representative of the larger group of which they claim to be a part? If you do, please defend how it can be so. If not, please explain what else included in the cited article helps define the characteristics of the republican party as a larger body.
     
  19. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #19
    You need to read more carefully. I never claimed the article had merit. In fact I didn't even bother to read past the first paragraph when it was first posted. My point was that your persecution tirade was unfounded, not productive, and most certainly not going to "raise the bar".

    The thread however did take an immediate turn into discussion the persuasive, irrational effects of religion on american politics. Which has plenty of merit in its discussion.
     
  20. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #20
    As if your over-the-top tirade weren't already funny enough, you seem to have missed the point of the thread. Eraserhead can correct me if I'm wrong, but the article he was reading was merely the launching point for a larger issue that he wanted to discuss, which he had quoted in his original post. I'll quote it again:

    In case it is still over your head, here's the argument laid out in plainer language: The conservative right in this country can be as sexually repressive as the Muslim fundamentalists they are claiming to "save the world" from. Do you disagree with this sentiment, and if you do, why?
     
  21. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #21
    Perhaps if you had read the full article, you would have a different judgement as to whether its presentation can be considered trolling as defined in the MR guidelines. It is quite common for MR members to bring attention to trolling in their post responses. Rather than think of them as going on a persecution tirade, I like to think of them as crusaders for a more intellectually honest dialogue. Care to join in?
     
  22. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #22
    There was a perfectly rational, calm, and intellectually honest discussion here before you took things personally and spouted off your poorly conceived tirade. There is only one troll in this thread who is trying to do anything but continue the discussion that they are uncomfortable with.

    It's there, right up to post 9. You might disagree with what is being discussed. Feel free to add your criticisms and form your "intellectually honest" argument.
     
  23. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #23
    Wow, you really believe this stuff, don't you? What in the article or anything else the OP said or presented would lay the foundation for any discussion of the possible level of sexual repressiveness (which hasn't been defined) of an ill-defined group of people, in this case the "conservative right." How can the discussion be properly launched on the platform of an amalgamation error that lumps all republicans, who probably range very widely in their sexual liberties and repressions, into one group and then refers to the group tendencies as if there is no variability within the group?
     
  24. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #24
    Forming an argument wasn't so hard was it mgguy :)! That's a good one too. You're well on your way to becoming a liberal ;).
     
  25. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #25
    Why shouldn't I? The conservative right is overwhelmingly anti-choice. Your nominee for vice-president even believed in denying abortions to women who were raped. I'll believe something different when the conservative right dumps it's socially conservative agenda.
     

Share This Page