From reading John Steinbeck novels, it seems like democrats were seen as being poor hicks. Now republicans are seen as being that way.

In the "olden days", republicans were stereotyped as being rich and snobby, and now democrats are stereotyped that way. I think maybe that comes from so many celebrities being democrats.

What do you think? Have you noticed this change?

Maybe i'm just crazy?

I used to think that the Republicans actually did things, albeit entirely wrong ones, where as the Democrats never did anything, but had the right ideas...

Nowadays I don't care for either party: voting is a choice of who is going to screw up the country the least.

To be completely cynical, Republicans are going to **** you and then say how immoral it is, where the Democrats are going to do the same but offer a reach-around and free health care... but never deliver.

The two party system has already failed: it's just how long we, collectively, are going to take to realize it.

Ant

I wish I knew about things like you do...and Morrissey.

I really don't know anything, so I should keep my mouth shut.

I wish I knew about things like you do...and Morrissey.

I really don't know anything, so I should keep my mouth shut.


I'm not a political expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

A lot of politics is perception. If it looks like a turd, smells like a turd and doesn't do anything except foul up your rag when you try to polish it, it's probably a turd.

I think you are correct in that Republicans used to be considered the rich and upper class, and the Dems stood for the downtrodden and poor. Now, if you don't have 10 to 100 million in funds for campaigning, you are anathema to both parties.

Both parties are so far removed from the average American's views that it's amazing to me an independent or moderate can't sweep the elections. Perhaps that's why only ~40% of eligible voters bother to vote: the ~60% that don't probably think there is no real choice, and they would be wasting their vote.

Ant

America is a one party state with two right wings. 

Each one tries to call itself the party of the people but both are at the beck and call of big business.

The media represents the far-right and the farther right.  The Democrats on television tend to be center-right conservatives who happend to be Democrats. 

From reading John Steinbeck novels, it seems like democrats were seen as being poor hicks. Now republicans are seen as being that way.

In the "olden days", republicans were stereotyped as being rich and snobby, and now democrats are stereotyped that way. I think maybe that comes from so many celebrities being democrats.

What do you think? Have you noticed this change?

Maybe i'm just crazy?


Before the Civil Rights Movement, Democrats were the party of the "Solid South," Confederate sympathizers (having also been the party of the actual Confederacy), foreign policy interventionism, and social conservatives.

Likewise, Republicans were the party of rich Northern industrialists, foreign policy isolationism, and social liberals (having been the party of the Union and of abolitionism in general).

This all began to change when the Democrats became the party of the Civil Rights Movement.  A wing of the Democrats left and became the Dixiecrats, who would later become Republicans (Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond were among this group).  Eventually, social liberalism became a Democratic trait, especially when the far left of the party protested the continuance of the Vietnam War (and mistakenly treated returning veterans like crap).  While many modern Democrats are still interventionists, there is a growing presence of isolationism in the party (represented by people like John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich).

So, the Republicans gradually gained ground in the military industrial complex and among military personnel themselves, and they became more interventionist while simultaneously becoming socially conservative (from Reagan's appeal to the Religious Right).

In effect, all of this meant that the Republicans became the party of the South and West, and the Democrats became the party of the North and West Coast.  This was virtually a complete reversal of the areas the parties used to control.

When it comes to class, Democrats count the elite rich of the much of the media and entertainment among themselves, while the Republicans count the business elite and professional sports elite.

The poor among Democrats are usually minorities of the inner cities and some Southern "blue dog" Democrats that are socially conservative but still economically liberal.  The poor among Republicans are usually "hicks" and the Religious Right.

As you can see, much has changed since Steinbeck's time.  The Republicans went from being Libertarians to Neoconservatives, and the Democrats went from being Populists to Liberals.

What hasn't changed is that the South and West have always been socially conservative, while the North and West Coast have always been socially liberal.  Economic Policy and Foreign Policy are where the true battlegrounds of policy lie, but social dilemmas often obscure this truth....

When it comes to class, Democrats count the elite rich of the much of the media and entertainment among themselves, while the Republicans count the business elite and professional sports elite.
I see the right-wing media giving Hollywood undue influence.  If Tim Robbins gets up there and trashes Dubya, I don't care.  The Hollywood glitteratti doesn't speak for me either way.  I might chuckle and say "right on" if a celebrity nails down a political situation for what it is, but none of them have any influence in forming my opinions.  I think it's a red herring.  I never met anyone who got his or her political ideology for Hollywood. 

The poor among Democrats are usually minorities of the inner cities and some Southern "blue dog" Democrats that are socially conservative but still economically liberal.  The poor among Republicans are usually "hicks" and the Religious Right.
And neither party does much for either base.  The inner cities are still crime-ridden wastelands and Roe v. Wade and the porno industry ride on. 
It seems to be a lot of the Christian Right no longer is interested in political change because they are Armageddonists, end-timers.  They're fed up with this world and they want the rapture so they can live in eternal bliss with Jesus and the rest of us can go f*ck ourselves.
Poor folks in American have given up hope.  The ones who are not swept up in the religious right just muddle through life getting done what needs to get done and enjoying the simple pleasures they can afford.  I can't blame them.  You'll never see me look askance at a truck driver for lighting up a Marlboro.  I still vote and do some civic activities, but I'm pretty disillusioned.  I could easily start saying the fat cats won and there's nothing we can do about it.

Anyway, I'm off topic here.
:-\\

As you can see, much has changed since Steinbeck's time.  The Republicans went from being Libertarians to Neoconservatives, and the Democrats went from being Populists to Liberals.

What hasn't changed is that the South and West have always been socially conservative, while the North and West Coast have always been socially liberal.  Economic Policy and Foreign Policy are where the true battlegrounds of policy lie, but social dilemmas often obscure this truth....

I see the right-wing media giving Hollywood undue influence.  If Tim Robbins gets up there and trashes Dubya, I don't care.  The Hollywood glitteratti doesn't speak for me either way.  I might chuckle and say "right on" if a celebrity nails down a political situation for what it is, but none of them have any influence in forming my opinions.  I think it's a red herring.  I never met anyone who got his or her political ideology for Hollywood. 
And neither party does much for either base.  The inner cities are still crime-ridden wastelands and Roe v. Wade and the porno industry ride on. 
It seems to be a lot of the Christian Right no longer is interested in political change because they are Armageddonists, end-timers.  They're fed up with this world and they want the rapture so they can live in eternal bliss with Jesus and the rest of us can go f*ck ourselves.
Poor folks in American have given up hope.  The ones who are not swept up in the religious right just muddle through life getting done what needs to get done and enjoying the simple pleasures they can afford.  I can't blame them.  You'll never see me look askance at a truck driver for lighting up a Marlboro.  I still vote and do some civic activities, but I'm pretty disillusioned.  I could easily start saying the fat cats won and there's nothing we can do about it.

Anyway, I'm off topic here.
:-\\

I agree with much of what you've said here, but I'm glad Roe vs. Wade is in place and that porno is easy to get...  lol

If there's any positive trend in American politics, it's that the average person is becoming less Populist and more Libertarian.  People want less government, not more -- as Ron Paul's popularity shows us.

I agree with much of what you've said here, but I'm glad Roe vs. Wade is in place and that porno is easy to get...  lol

If there's any positive trend in American politics, it's that the average person is becoming less Populist and more Libertarian.  People want less government, not more -- as Ron Paul's popularity shows us.


Populism is necessary.  Libertarianism is attractive, but a nation of 300 million Ayn Rand disciples would lead to what Greg Palast called an "Armed Madhouse"!

I think Dr. Paul is popular because he's a straight-shooter AND he's got himself a soapbox.  He doesn't bullsh*t.  We're sick of the bullsh*t.  I'm sick of the bullsh*t, you're sick of the bullsh*t, even my old mother says she's sick of the bullsh*t. 
And yet...the bullsh*t rides on!  I'm talking about YOU, Hillary, Obama, Giuliani, Romney...
I'll tell you, though, first week of the Paul Administration, you'd see that man sell his soul to the devil just as fast as he knows how.  Welcome to DC!
::)

Something I've found quite frequently in election campaigning is that people only really want to vote if they're voting for the winner, or at the very least someone who will probably/possibly win: as a long-time Liberal (in the UK rather than US sense of the word), I've seen candidates who (literally) everybody would agree were the best people for the job gaining barely any votes because it was thought they couldn't win.  It's an entirely self-fulfilling prophesy, which the two parties in power spend a not inconsiderable amount of their time trying to reinforce, for obvious reasons. 

And it looks very much the same on that side of the pond: why don't people vote for third-party or independent candidates?  Because they can't win

Democracy can only work with a knowledgeable and thoughtful electorate - can anyone point to a country where it does?  Anywhere?

We really need a Moderate Party. Now!

We really need a Moderate Party. Now!
we do! and they need to STAMP OUT EVERYONE WHO OPPOSES THEM! >:(

Something I've found quite frequently in election campaigning is that people only really want to vote if they're voting for the winner, or at the very least someone who will probably/possibly win: as a long-time Liberal (in the UK rather than US sense of the word), I've seen candidates who (literally) everybody would agree were the best people for the job gaining barely any votes because it was thought they couldn't win.  It's an entirely self-fulfilling prophesy, which the two parties in power spend a not inconsiderable amount of their time trying to reinforce, for obvious reasons. 

And it looks very much the same on that side of the pond: why don't people vote for third-party or independent candidates?  Because they can't win

Democracy can only work with a knowledgeable and thoughtful electorate - can anyone point to a country where it does?  Anywhere?


Canada has a neat 4-way party system.  The Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party both are going strong despite being second-tier parties.

"armed madhouse" would be a good band name.

sorry, i'm not making constructive contributions tonight. :-[

we do! and they need to STAMP OUT EVERYONE WHO OPPOSES THEM! >:(

Goes with my old proverb:

"Everything in moderation, including excess."
:D

We really need a Moderate Party. Now!


Death to all fanatics!  Prosecutors will be violated!

Something I've found quite frequently in election campaigning is that people only really want to vote if they're voting for the winner, or at the very least someone who will probably/possibly win: as a long-time Liberal (in the UK rather than US sense of the word), I've seen candidates who (literally) everybody would agree were the best people for the job gaining barely any votes because it was thought they couldn't win.  It's an entirely self-fulfilling prophesy, which the two parties in power spend a not inconsiderable amount of their time trying to reinforce, for obvious reasons. 

And it looks very much the same on that side of the pond: why don't people vote for third-party or independent candidates?  Because they can't win

Democracy can only work with a knowledgeable and thoughtful electorate - can anyone point to a country where it does?  Anywhere?


  Heh, yeah - I was going to say something about that after seeing a "hasn't a chance in hell/ain't gonna win" blurb in another thread...

  Also remember, we don't necessarily vote FOR candidates here, we vote AGAINST them.  It's the "lesser of two evils" thing and that's a problem.  People didn't vote FOR Kerry in '04, they voted AGAINST Bush.  But when you step back and take a look, it all just comes down to tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum...

  I've said it before, here - Voting for a third-party candidate is not a wasted vote.  Both Conferences of the Republocrat League pay very close attention to the growing strength of potential competitors for their power and make whatever concessions are necessary to keep them out of the mainstream...

  If enough people would vote for the Libertarians, for instance, who knows.  The Democrats and Republicans might dig out and dust off their old copies of the Constitution and start abiding by a few of its provisions to keep us from siphoning off too many of their votes groove ;) on...

 

  The preceding was a paid advertisement for the Paul in '08 committee and stuff...

 

  Also remember, we don't necessarily vote FOR candidates here, we vote AGAINST them.

That's true here, too (and not just for MPs, the party leaders, especially Tory party leaders, are usually elected because they're not the other one.  Cameron is the first one in over 30 years to be elected because of who he is rather than who he isn't.  I even wrote a song about that)

If you think about it, it's the only really valid rationale for the "if he's not going to win, I'm not going to vote for him" attitude - if the only reason for voting is to prevent someone else getting elected, that is.

   Heh, yeah - I was going to say something about that after seeing a "hasn't a chance in hell/ain't gonna win" blurb in another thread...

   Also remember, we don't necessarily vote FOR candidates here, we vote AGAINST them.  It's the "lesser of two evils" thing and that's a problem.  People didn't vote FOR Kerry in '04, they voted AGAINST Bush.  But when you step back and take a look, it all just comes down to tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum...

   I've said it before, here - Voting for a third-party candidate is not a wasted vote.  Both Conferences of the Republocrat League pay very close attention to the growing strength of potential competitors for their power and make whatever concessions are necessary to keep them out of the mainstream...

   If enough people would vote for the Libertarians, for instance, who knows.  The Democrats and Republicans might dig out and dust off their old copies of the Constitution and start abiding by a few of its provisions to keep us from siphoning off too many of their votes groove ;) on...

   

   The preceding was a paid advertisement for the Paul in '08 committee and stuff...

   


+1 karma...  Remember, remember the 5th of November...  :D

This all began to change when the Democrats became the party of the Civil Rights Movement.  A wing of the Democrats left and became the Dixiecrats, who would later become Republicans (Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond were among this group).  Eventually, social liberalism became a Democratic trait, especially when the far left of the party protested the continuance of the Vietnam War (and mistakenly treated returning veterans like crap).  While many modern Democrats are still interventionists, there is a growing presence of isolationism in the party (represented by people like John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich).

I guess that explains why now Republicans are sometimes stereotyped as being racist (Bill O'Reilly and Anne Coulter seem to be), and Democrats as being not. But again, in the past, it was reversed.

Though some conservatives believe that Democrats are really closet Racist. I guess because of the whole Civil War?

I think both sides can have closet racist members, especially policiticans. Politicians are so phoney.....And that's something America is criticized for having. Phoney politicians.

I guess that explains why now Republicans are sometimes stereotyped as being racist (Bill O'Reilly and Anne Coulter seem to be), and Democrats as being not. But again, in the past, it was reversed.

Though some conservatives believe that Democrats are really closet Racist. I guess because of the whole Civil War?

I think both sides can have closet racist members, especially policiticans. Politicians are so phoney.....And that's something America is criticized for having. Phoney politicians.


On a lot of college campuses it's OK to hate white people, it really is--especially if you're white yourself. 

As much as I despise David Horowitz and all those clowns, it's true.

On a lot of college campuses it's OK to hate white people, it really is--especially if you're white yourself. 

As much as I despise David Horowitz and all those clowns, it's true.


Very true...  Or my personal favorite is how we're supposed tolerate all the intolerance coming from certain elements of the Muslim community but criticize Christianity every chance we get.

Personally, I'm not a fan of any religion, but if I had to pick between Christianity and Islam, I'd go with Christianity hands down.

Very true...   Or my personal favorite is how we're supposed tolerate all the intolerance coming from certain elements of the Muslim community but criticize Christianity every chance we get.

Personally, I'm not a fan of any religion, but if I had to pick between Christianity and Islam, I'd go with Christianity hands down.

Islam is 1300 years old.  What were Christians doing when Christianity was 1300 years old?  The same sh*t!
:D

As an agnostic, I'm not anti-religion.  I'm for separation of church and state and freedom of religion.  I don't get in your face about what you want to believe, you don't get in my face about what I want to believe (I mean those pronouns in a general sense).

But that's why one might get the impression I am anti-religion.  The Evangelical Christians get in my face.  They want to boss the lunch.  They want to control the government.  They want us to surrender scientific principle for hocus-pocus.  I've got no love lost on those fundamentalist Muslims who demand we all submit to the will of Allah or die, and I'm no fan of the right-wing Jews who think God deeded them Israel. 

You know who pounded on my door last Saturday morning trying to trip me out into being one of the 144,000 chosen ones to go to heaven after Armageddon?  While, it wasn't the Buddhists, I'll tell you that much!

I make jokes about white people in the context of having a pop at the white people who act like their victims because they're white.  However, I don't go for "white guilt," which really amounts to "white shame."
"You're OK, I'm not OK" doesn't work any better than "I'm OK, you're not OK"!
::)

Very true...  Or my personal favorite is how we're supposed tolerate all the intolerance coming from certain elements of the Muslim community but criticize Christianity every chance we get.

Listen to this - simply the best religious rant, ever.


Personally, I'm not a fan of any religion, but if I had to pick between Christianity and Islam, I'd go with Christianity hands down.

Or hands chopped off, anyway...  ;)

Very true...   Or my personal favorite is how we're supposed tolerate all the intolerance coming from certain elements of the Muslim community but criticize Christianity every chance we get.

Personally, I'm not a fan of any religion, but if I had to pick between Christianity and Islam, I'd go with Christianity hands down.


oh please.  There are certain elements of the Christian Community that could link hands with certain elements of the Muslim community, you wouldn't know the difference.  There isn't any difference whatsoever when you are dealing with zealots on either side, and neither is better nor worse than the other, oh, and while we are at it, Jesus is a part of Islam and is in the Quaran

Listen to this - simply the best religious rant, ever.

LOL...  This guy is even better than Pat Condell.  The single best line was, "If you want to wear a ring that says you're not having sex, you can get married like the rest of us."

Great stuff...  +1 karma

oh please.  There are certain elements of the Christian Community that could link hands with certain elements of the Muslim community, you wouldn't know the difference.  There isn't any difference whatsoever when you are dealing with zealots on either side, and neither is better nor worse than the other, oh, and while we are at it, Jesus is a part of Islam and is in the Quaran


Well, as Maxwell pointed out, Christianity was doing the sort of things Islam is doing now back when it was Islam's current age.  Still, when you consider the modern technology that the current zealots have access to, we can't tolerate murderous extremism.  And while I see where you're coming from, there is simiply no comparison between the current number of violent Christian extremists compared to the number of violent Islamic ones.

I realize that most Muslims aren't crazy bastards, but the sane ones seriously need to rein in their nutcases.

Well, as Maxwell pointed out, Christianity was doing the sort of things Islam is doing now back when it was Islam's current age.  Still, when you consider the modern technology that the current zealots have access to, we can't tolerate murderous extremism.  And while I see where you're coming from, there is simiply no comparison between the current number of violent Christian extremists compared to the number of violent Islamic ones.

I realize that most Muslims aren't crazy bastards, but the sane ones seriously need to rein in their nutcases.

HOW?

"Hey you guys, cut that out!"
Come on.  If you could get extremist to listen to reason ipso facto they wouldn't be extremists. 

Right after 9/11 Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Franklin Graham showed the best of Christian reason, humility, and forgiveness when they blamed blamed the attacks on homosexuals, feminists, and liberals.  Robertson referred to Allah as a "genie," and Graham called Mohammed a "child molester." 

Would your average Presbyterian minister say that stuff?  Of course not.  Loudmouths, shockers, extremists, they get the press.  The Christian ministers who did speak up for a measure of caution and turn-the-other-cheek after 9/11 caught hell for it.

The leaders of radical Islam harness the religion for political ends.  That's what the Christian Right does.  That's what Robertson, Falwell, and Graham were doing.  They were trying to stir up fear and hatred and draw the fearful and hateful into the agenda of the American right-wing.  Same sh*t Osama does.  And don't tell me the leaders of the Christian Right in this country do not contribute to war and violence.  It's not as direct as radical Islam, but ohhhh boy is it there!

Mainstream Muslim clerics spend their time doing the same things mainstream Christian ministers do--preparing sermons, running charities, organizing community events, and so forth.  They're not going to drop their responsibilities as clerics to spend all their time preaching to crazies who defile Islam and won't listen anyway. 
::)
::)

HOW?

"Hey you guys, cut that out!"
Come on.  If you could get extremist to listen to reason ipso facto they wouldn't be extremists.

Well, I know of plenty of ways to get rid of them, but most of them aren't legal.  Basically, if the Muslim community really wanted to, they could do the mob thing.

"Hey Jamal, what's this I hear about you wanting to blow people up for Allah?  I'll tell you what...  I got a oneway ticket to 72 virgins right here in this woodchipper with your name written all over it."

*Jamal screams as he's thrown into the chipper head first*

"Islamism...  Bad for business.  Now, all of the rest of you should understand that working for Allah also means working for me.  You're gonna earn your keep and raise a family, and if I ever hear about you even thinking about blowing people up, you're gonna see how Mr. John Deere can help you with one last pilgrimage.  Capisce?"

Right after 9/11 Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Franklin Graham showed the best of Christian reason, humility, and forgiveness when they blamed blamed the attacks on homosexuals, feminists, and liberals.  Robertson referred to Allah as a "genie," and Graham called Mohammed a "child molester." 

As mentioned above, the woodchipper could work the same miracles for Christians as it could for Muslims.

Would your average Presbyterian minister say that stuff?  Of course not.  Loudmouths, shockers, extremists, they get the press.  The Christian ministers who did speak up for a measure of caution and turn-the-other-cheek after 9/11 caught hell for it.

The leaders of radical Islam harness the religion for political ends.  That's what the Christian Right does.  That's what Robertson, Falwell, and Graham were doing.  They were trying to stir up fear and hatred and draw the fearful and hateful into the agenda of the American right-wing.  Same sh*t Osama does.  And don't tell me the leaders of the Christian Right in this country do not contribute to war and violence.  It's not as direct as radical Islam, but ohhhh boy is it there!

Mainstream Muslim clerics spend their time doing the same things mainstream Christian ministers do--preparing sermons, running charities, organizing community events, and so forth.  They're not going to drop their responsibilities as clerics to spend all their time preaching to crazies who defile Islam and won't listen anyway. 
::)
::)


Good points, but maybe "turning the other cheek" is a bad idea when attempting to cleanse your own community of extremism.  Granted, I realize the method I advocate is extremist in its own right.

Granted, I realize the method I advocate is extremist in its own right.

There's your problem... you can't use the "end justifies the means" rationale without turning into the sort of person you're trying to get rid of.

I just wish more people had the guts to laugh at them, and to keep going on about just how brainless, stupid, idiotic, etc. their behaviour is. 'Cause, let's face it, harming other people while not helping your own cause is possibly the second most stupid thing it is possible for a person to do... the most stupid being blowing yourself up while you do it.

There's your problem... you can't use the "end justifies the means" rationale without turning into the sort of person you're trying to get rid of.

I just wish more people had the guts to laugh at them, and to keep going on about just how brainless, stupid, idiotic, etc. their behaviour is. 'Cause, let's face it, harming other people while not helping your own cause is possibly the second most stupid thing it is possible for a person to do... the most stupid being blowing yourself up while you do it.

It's one thing if you're a p*ssed-off 19-year-old living in a Gaza shack with nothing to lose, but some of these guys are orthodontists and accountants and stuff. 
"Well, tomorrow morning I have to drop the kids off at piano lessons and pick the dog up from the vet, but I think I can squeeze in the car bombing around 2:00"
:D

It's one thing if you're a p*ssed-off 19-year-old living in a Gaza shack with nothing to lose, but some of these guys are orthodontists and accountants and stuff. 
"Well, tomorrow morning I have to drop the kids off at piano lessons and pick the dog up from the vet, but I think I can squeeze in the car bombing around 2:00"
:D

If a doctor, who's presumably got through years of medical school, taken a Hippocratic (rather than hypocritic) oath is still stupid enough to think that blowing himself up in Glasgow airport is anything other than mindbogglingly idiotic, then yes, we have a problem... maybe it would help if instead of making out how dangerous to society these people are, we just laughed at them for being as brainless as it is possible for a human to be - if that was the general, accepted view of suicide bombers - do you really think these people would have quite the same mindset?

It's kind of hard to laugh about an event that ended up killing a friend or family member, but I know what you mean.

Still, it would be a lot easier to take a lighthearted approach if people weren't getting killed as a result of their idiocy.

Since murder is part of the equation, we try to watch these people closely, but most of the burden for ending extremism should fall upon these communities themselves.  If Muslims want to protect their reputation and livelihoods, they need to help us apprehend people that become pawns of extremism.

If people like Eric Rudolph were more common, I'd be aiming my criticism at the Christians, but nowadays, the most murderous extremists are Islamic.  Therefore, the Muslim community needs to be more proactive in dealing with extremism than any other group.

It's kind of hard to laugh about an event that ended up killing a friend or family member, but I know what you mean.

Still, it would be a lot easier to take a lighthearted approach if people weren't getting killed as a result of their idiocy.

Since murder is part of the equation, we try to watch these people closely, but most of the burden for ending extremism should fall upon these communities themselves.  If Muslims want to protect their reputation and livelihoods, they need to help us apprehend people that become pawns of extremism.

If people like Eric Rudolph were more common, I'd be aiming my criticism at the Christians, but nowadays, the most murderous extremists are Islamic.  Therefore, the Muslim community needs to be more proactive in dealing with extremism than any other group.

I'm less concerned about wingnuts like Eric Rudolph than I am about the fascist pharisees, such as Pat Robertson and his West African blood diamonds!
::)

I'm less concerned about wingnuts like Eric Rudolph than I am about the fascist pharisees, such as Pat Robertson and his West African blood diamonds!
::)


Now THAT is a good point.  Unfortunately, not many people know about that.  Mark Earley is a class-A @$$hole for blocking the investigation that would've been made by Virginia against Robertson.  Granted, this is Virginia we're talking about.  North Carolina is a valley of humility between two mountains of conceit (Virginia and South Carolina).

Let me put it this way.  I'd have no problem with Pat Robertson "disappearing" one day, only to find his mangled corpse washed up on the shore of Sierra Leone.  If karma actually existed, something like this would have already happened.

It's kind of hard to laugh about an event that ended up killing a friend or family member, but I know what you mean.

Still, it would be a lot easier to take a lighthearted approach if people weren't getting killed as a result of their idiocy.

That's the whole reason why we need to step up the ridicule: I'm not talking about laughing at an event that killed people (I guess the relatives would take that as kind of crass), but at the whole religious-extremist self-immolation idiocy.  And especially those too stupid to even make it work.



Since murder is part of the equation, we try to watch these people closely, but most of the burden for ending extremism should fall upon these communities themselves.  If Muslims want to protect their reputation and livelihoods, they need to help us apprehend people that become pawns of extremism.

If people like Eric Rudolph were more common, I'd be aiming my criticism at the Christians, but nowadays, the most murderous extremists are Islamic.  Therefore, the Muslim community needs to be more proactive in dealing with extremism than any other group.

I will admit that I am disappointed that the police don't get more intelligence from Muslims about radical preachers and the like; though I'm not sure how much even those living with some of these bombers knew: when a load of bomb-making bits were found in a wood just down the road from me, it seemed to come as a total surprise to everyone that these nice, polite chaps were planning murder.  But the local paper didn't print my "just how stupid are these people" letter, for some reason...

There's your problem... you can't use the "end justifies the means" rationale without turning into the sort of person you're trying to get rid of.

I just wish more people had the guts to laugh at them, and to keep going on about just how brainless, stupid, idiotic, etc. their behaviour is. 'Cause, let's face it, harming other people while not helping your own cause is possibly the second most stupid thing it is possible for a person to do... the most stupid being blowing yourself up while you do it.


As "civilized" as we are here in the US we have factions that we can not control, but we have found the best way is by going after the money.  Most of these people are sheep, you have to go for the shepherd, and the sheperd is usually really in it for the money.

I think both of the parties suck, but Democrats are better because they are pro-environment.

I think both of the parties suck, but Democrats are better because they are pro-environment.


Good point...  I prefer the Democrats because of that reason and because, if we're going to waste money one way or the other, it's better we do it on social programs rather than war.

Still, I prefer Ron Paul the most of the presidential candidates, because he's really nothing like your typical Republican.  He actually supports smaller government, rather than just talking about it.

"While it is true that not all conservatives are stupid,
most stupid people are conservative."

--John Stuart Mill