So a few months ago, I decided, since I was in my last year at school, to attend a few functions at our campus' College Republicans meetings and rallies. I did not want to join, but attended to show support. What I see saddens me.
This state I live in is a Democrat-entrenched state. Republican agendas rarely get past the wishful thinking stage in the state legislature. So, in attending these Republican events, I sense an air of desperation, though it is desperation that seems to be spreading to the larger society.
The students who join the College Republicans all lean to the extreme right. God-fearing to several faults, anti-affirmative action, anti-universal health care. Essentially when they get new talking points out of the Republican Party, they immediately hit the streets to champion it. They don't stop to think about the issues. These people are the worst sort of Republican drone I wish would leave the party.
Without thinking about the issues, they would trash Democrats as liberals on every issue. Mention to them that several polls actually show a majority of Republicans want universal health care, a stereotypically liberal issue, and they look upon me as though I were an enemy.
As some parts of the country have legislation currently pending on affirmative action, these Republican drones also seem intent on offending minorities as they would use a megaphone to shout down minorities using convoluted logic of the type I haven't heard since watching the documentaries from the 50's and 60's. It's embarrassing.
The polarizing of politics in America has left some idiots to call Republicans conservatives and Democrats liberals without considering what actual Republicans and Democrats think. There is far more blurring of the lines than anyone is bothering to consider.
Liberal issues vs conservative issues -- these are all artificial constructs that both parties prop up to differentiate themselves from one another, but as far as individual belief, no one but party drones actually stick to their party lines. McCain may be the best example of this. For months, official party noise was that McCain was far too liberal. From O'Reilly to Limbaugh to a couple of virulent religious people, it was virtually unanimous that McCain was the worst choice. Yet, when actual Republicans voted, he became the unanimous choice for our Presidential candidate.
So, when you see or hear of people attacking one side or the other as too liberal or too conservative, just remember, virtually everyone first somewhere in between. Ignore the idiots trying to convince you otherwise.
In the effort of not being someone who attacks just one side as being too conservative, could you also point out the drones in the Democrat Party?
I'd hate for you to be inconsistant and biased.
What do you want leftfield to add?
An experience-- that he's never had --that illustrates how the Democrat(ic) Party has its own non-thinkers? Or a token statement (that we each already assume) like, "I'm sure the other side of the aisle has its wackos"?
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
I'm annoyingly partisan by suggesting that, in a blog that spends its time ranting about mindless Republicans, one might consider mindless Democrats as well?
Are you sure that I'm the partisan one?
I reckon it's assumed that there are politicos on either side of the spectrum-- People that simply listen to the poly-machine and regurgitate opinions like they're hotcakes on a Sunday morning. Only maybe not that extensive and detailed...
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
I would hold that the Democrat "mindless troll" machine is much larger.
I would be kind and at least suggest they are equal in size, but I can't find anyone on the left who is willing to condem the Democrat propaganda machine... even if they're chomping at the bit to rip on Republicans.
If someone thinks that socialists like Hillary or Obama are too extremely liberal for them, they have McCain, who is of the same political making as Lieberman.
If someone refuses to vote for McCain because he is a Republican, that is a person who is blinded by political party.
I'm a conservative. I find all three to be far too 'big government liberal' to me. Two support radical universal healthcare, and the third supports a smaller 'children' version of universal healthcare.
None of the three are great on gun control (all three favor some form of it, one of them coming from a city that has an outright ban on firearms.).
I do my best to be consistant. There are, indeed, people who do not think, just repeat what they are told.
However, on a blog ranting about how widespread it is, it is unusual that the focus is only on the Republicans that do this.
That was my original point.
I am relating one experience and expanding upon it.
Maybe I should write another blog on the artificial construct of "fair and balanced."
Even when you write about an issue where you have no experience with the other side, you're still expected to be "balanced." That's just weird.
No, you are free to write as you wish.
However, one should expect to be confronted when they write something that is one-sided and biased.
That's how this works.
A blog about those mindless drones called Republicans is going to be met with resistance by people who disagree with you. (in this case, me.)
I don't disagree that there ARE such people, but in the interest of intellectual honesty, one cannot rant about the republicans for doing something that is also owned by the Democrats.
Unless you don't believe that it happens on the left? (though, the outright lies about President Bush, "Big Oil", War on Terror, Iraq, etc etc etc, kind of disprove that assertion.)
There is a partisan nature in your blog. That's because there is a partisan nature in you. You're allowed to be that way, as am I.
However, you shouldn't be suprised that someone disagrees with you. Because you're saying what you're saying doesn't place you above reproach.
I don't disagree that there ARE such people, but in the interest of intellectual honesty, one cannot rant about the republicans for doing something that is also owned by the Democrats.
But I was relating my experience with the College Republicans group, and only expanding on that. How do I work in what I think of Democrats unless I do it arbitrarily? I haven't attended any events that remotely have to do with Democrats so while I know their national talking points, I simply cannot comment on what I see in ordinary students.
So if I truly were fair and intellectually honest, I cannot comment on their national talking points, and try to extrapolate some kind of rant against Democrats from it.
But you did speak about more than just the College Republicans.
That is the point at which you focused solely on the republicans and did not address the exact same behavior by the democrats.
In so doing, it gives the appearance of it being ok for people to do that as long as they agree with you on issues like affirmative action (which I am against as it is a racist program) and universal healthcare (which I am against as it results in horrible healthcare, as evidenced by the hordes of people from Canada that come here to healthcare to avoid the long lines in Canada, not to mention that the government has never proven to be a wise steward of our money, nor do they run social programs well)
That is the intellectual honesty I was referring to.
think versus the College Republicans' trumpeting of national talking points.
Nothing intellectually dishonest about it.
What is intellectually dishonest is using blanket statements like Democrats do this, or Republicans do that. As I've said, the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
That paragraph is where you leave the realm of College Republicans totally.
And, to set the record straight, McCain was not the unanimous choice. Far from it. He is the ONLY choice now, which is not the same thing.
I think Lance has a point. Based on the title of your blog I expected to see a comparitive analysis which examined Republicans, Democrats and an un-named third party in some sort of objective manner.
Instead all I found was a rant against conservatives.
Republicans' views are. Everything is one sided. If you are not a conservative, you are a Democrat. Instead of finding common ground and realizing that most people actually have pretty similar views, it's always us vs. them.
But yes, I do blame it on conservative mentality, as those were the only views acceptable in the particular organization I attended. However, nationally, it does seem that College Republicans on most campuses have the same mentality.
How many campuses with College Republicans have you dealt with?
Why is it the conservative mentality that you blame it on? What does a more liberal mentality have that makes it superior in some way?
When you're on the extreme left and extreme right, you lose perspective and reason.
No comment as to the vast number of college campuses you've dealt with to form your opinion as to the College Republicans' 'right wing extremity' nature?
If you want to see what the national mood for this organization, just type "college republicans" in a search engine. They're full of shenanigans, although I didn't realize this when I attended at the time. Who'da think conservative Republicans would be so into shock and awe tactics?
You said:
Since you feel that you are fit to make such a statement, in a blog in which you are talking about your experiences, then it stands to reason that you must have vast contact with College Republicans on many campuses.
Or, you're just purposely trying to degrade College Republicans.
Now, let's be fair here, leftfield. You still haven't proven how I am a mindless zombie of the Republican party.... yet we're not allowed to question what you say.
Who, then, is acting in a mindless way?
Yes, exactly. Either that or not write it at all because you're not balanced. Or throw in a general statement, like 'yeah the other side is probably no different.' Honestly how is that constructive when it's absolutely assumed that each organization deals with many of the same mishaps.
Perhaps that's an argument lancekates can fester over for another day or perhaps she'll simply write her own blog about the subject. Shux.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
First, I am a guy.
Second, I don't need your approval or opinon as to what I write.
Third, do you hate all conservatives? Or just ones who don't back down to your insults and browbeating?
And, lastly, you still haven't explained how I am part of the mindless partisan Republican group.
Hate all conservatives? No, I sincerely subscribe to the idea that I know a little about everything and not a whole lot about anything. But from what I know about conservatives, I do savor some of the ideals. Montanans have a strong tradition of self-sufficiency and the pride that accompanies it-- which is good. That's had a swell influence on me. But what I see as ultra-callous conservatism, sorry, I can't buy into that at this time in my life.
I don't remember calling you mindless, unless you think that adjective is synonymous with annoying...
I do apologize for not referring to you masculinely. I see words like kates and forever I'm doomed...
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
'ultra-callous' is generally not a conservative ideal.
Case in point. The feeling that you've expressed in a few places that it is ok to take more money from the rich so that they pay 'their fair share' (even though they are already paying the majority of income taxes in this country, it is still not enough)
That is, to many, ultra-callous.
I don't know about others, and I generally only answer for myself, but my goal is not to be 'mean' to poor people or anyone... but to motivate them to be independent, rather than being dependent upon the government.
Independence is freedom. Dependence upon the government is slavery.
I dig the "case in point" gig you've harbored. The fact is that the middle class and lower class each pay a larger percentage of taxes than they paid in the 1960s. Many of the people in these classes, including me, don't believe that government is working for them, because at the time that their standard of living has gone down (and we're seeing this today--ppl are predicting that my generation will be the first generation that will not have it better than their parents), corporations and millionaires have seen their contributions to society (and war) reduced from 1960s levels (33% taxable income) to contemporary levels where it sits around 8 or 9%.
We just have different perceptions of reality. You see that corporations pay the largest chunk and say, 'yeah, that's more than their fair share', without examining historical taxations and their effect on society. I think the 1960s were an awfully ripe time for business and democracy. Perhaps our perceptions don't make either one of us wrong. I don't know.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
Utter crap. The lower 50% of wage earners pay approximately 4% of income tax.
MANY pay nothing!
Yes, taxes may be taken out of their paycheck, but they get a FULL refund when they file.
What is the moral requirement that justifies such a legal action?
I know, sounds really radical, right? You pay for what you've used. That's more of a capitalistic model than anything, aside from being a moral one.
Prosperous economic times for the wealthiest Americans does not mean that any more amount of iPods will reach the middle class. Just because "...you raise the amount of money that comes in" doesn't mean that you have a healthy society in which most people's standard of living rises. Meaning, Reaganomics doesn't benefit a healthy, increasing middle class of citizens. Want proof?
A new Joint Economic Committee analysis said that seven years after the first Bush tax cuts were passed, “The evidence is clear that these tax cuts have been bad economic policy. They have done little to stimulate the economy. The economic expansion earlier in the Bush administration was one of the weakest on record, and the economy has once again fallen into recession.”
I've been thinking lately the main difference between you and I, you may agree, is who we choose to defend. You find it easier to defend a millionaire who has benefited from a system so much that they cannot buy a house that's large enough, because God bestowed them with rights to property. That's the key. Once an individual has benefited so much so from the United States Commons (I explained this earlier), they have certain responsibilities to replenish the air, the water, the court systems they've used.
Responsibilities, now that's something I think the callous conservative, Ayn Rand, wouldn't agree to.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
By the way...
In which way am I partisan?
You should hear me trash the Republicans for having slid to the left and abandoned Conservatives for the sake of stealing moderate Democrat votes.
Perhaps you should ask questions before declaring what I am.
I'm relating my experience interacting with the College Republicans and expanding on the issue of infighting.
I've never interacted with Democrats on campus events. If it's anything like the College Republicans, I would assume it's full of those on the extreme left -- lots of socialists and communists.
But you moved past talking about the College Republicans when you said this:
In there you move to the national seen and also threw in a bit of an insult to religious people.
McCain is the most liberal of all of the candidates that the Republicans put up. End of story. While Rudy had a few points that were more liberal than McCain, McCain is the one that only develops a spine when he's being a 'maverick' and fighting against the Republicans as being 'too conservative' (When a Democrat fights against Democrats as being too liberal, they are not called a Maverick, but a backstabbing traitor. As reference, look up Zell MIller)
He is more conservative than Hillary or Obama, and is on par with Lieberman. Liberman, you'll remember, was booted from the Democrat Party for suggesting that openly trashing the President during a time was war was done "at America's Peril". He then became an independent and, once he won, the Democrats buddied up to him and he rejoined them in all but name.
I'm a conservative and want a conservative president. I don't get that option. Instead the choices are socialist, marxist and liberal republican.
This is a GREAT election cycle for a liberal, they win whether they're a far-left liberal or a right-leaning liberal.
It is, however, a bad election cycle for a conservative, as there isn't one running in the big 2 parties, and the RNC is good at browbeating conservatives into voting Republican anyway.
The College Republicans are drones because they do not care about what true Republicans think. Nationally, locally, every which way you take it, ordinary Republicans think far beyond party lines.
I know you're a conservative, but I think you're of the type that fits the drone mentality. Pick a national party opinion, and I'm pretty sure you're for it. Am I wrong?
Your opinion is that I am a drone of the Republican Party.
That is the liberal bias showing through. "You agree with conservative principles, so you must be a republican drone."
Ok, I'll bite. Pick issues and explain the 'drone mentality', then I'll give you my opinon.
I'll entertain your request in a new blog.
You are free to make them. I have nothing to prove on my blog and no interest in Representing Republicans, as I am a conservative and the Republican party is moving to the left.
Before you suggst what the 'national party stances' are, remember who is representing Republicans in 2008.
Republicans have a VERY big tent, but it is still sliding to the left too much for many, such as myself, to be content with.
But you do like to shout the national organization's talking points. And you certainly do not speak for me.
Before you suggst what the 'national party stances' are, remember who is representing Republicans in 2008.
If you know the McCain of the past and the McCain of today, you'd realize that he is doing his best to shape shift toward the conservative image of the Republican party, and doing a bad job at it.
Now, he's turning into a Republican I won't vote for, and a Republican conservatives won't vote for. And all of this because the national party insists on keeping a particular image.
I don't claim to speak for you, and I don't know about any talking points from the RNC.... when confronted by call center employees who said that conservatives are no longer donating, and telling them so, the RNC's response was to fire the call center employess.
I am a conservative, but I suspect you assume much of my 'talking points"
He isn't, really. The only time he's shown a spine in the past few months of campaigning was to say that the North Carolina RNC was 'out of touch with reality' when it came to talking about Rev. Wright in reference to Obama's judgement.
He has always been a liberal republican and will continue to be so. That some of his handlers are trying to pass him off as a conservative is an insult to conservatives.
Remember, though, that conservative stances on issues are not talking points
This is a GREAT election cycle for a liberal, they win whether they're a far-left liberal or a right-leaning liberal.
Shux I want to agree with you on this point, but I cannot. You might consider me an overarching liberal (I worship many New Deal public work programs) but no, our system has not facilitated a candidate that I can readily accept. You may have a tough choice this cycle, but please don't patronize progressives by saying we have what we desire.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
So list your stances on the following items:
Gun Control
Healthcare
Border Control
Illegal Immigration
Taxes
Let's see where you stand in comparison with the 3 candidates from the 2 major parties we have for office.
Complex issues in one sentence. I'll attempt the impossible.
Gun Control--I support measures like the Brady Bill that at least instill the idea that background checks are important, but I also support groups like the NRA because in Montana, we dig hunting. In short rifles are swell because they have a purpose in my mind. Assault rifles have one purpose (you can't feed your family by killing game with AR's).
Healthcare--I support single-payer systems. At this time, the Canadian system is far too radical for any candidate in the two-party system.
Border Control--Show me an eleven foot high fence, I'll show you a twelve foot ladder.
Illegal Immigration--the Border Control issue ties in nicely with my idea about 'them darn illegals' which is: if we discourage the reason immigrants come to America, employment, then we discourage their will. I think the Mississippi model is a bit too severe for my liking, but it at least takes into consideration the problem. If we punish employers who hire these immigrants, we attack the problem at its source. No employer will employ an illegal if there's a carrot at the end of the stick gig.
Taxes--lower the taxes for those making under $100,000. Our middle class has struggled for years under Reaganomics.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
Ok, here we go:
Your view is identical to McCain's view. He believes in 'some sort' of gun control on 'assault rifles' and 'cheap guns' as well as some kinds of ammo.
Obama and Hillary are in radical 'gun control' territory and don't fit your view.
Both Obama and HIllary support that same type of system. McCain supports that kind of system for children, with an open possibility of expansion 'in the future'
McCain did not like the idea of building a Fence or Wall and believes that we should be more open to our neighbors.
You are a TOUCH to the right of McCain on that issue. He doesn't rail against making things tougher on employees, but he thinks we shouldn't be 'mean' to illegal immigrants and should grant amnesty (he calls it something different) to those who are here illegally.
our disagreement on taxes aside, you also fit in with mcCain much more than with Obama or Hillary. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts (only recently embracing them when he put in his bid for president). He has a history of being ok with raising taxes, and has not come out against 'taxing the rich'
Of the three candidates, McCain is your man. The question is, are you going to vote for a Republican?
WEDGE ISSUES
--Thank you. Border control, gun control and immigration are wedge issues that I don't particularly weigh my decisions on. You believe that these issues, because they're you're top issues, should be the priority. And our priorities, like our opinions on the issues themselves, vary.
HEALTHCARE
--Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton do not support a single-payer system, although I do see more potential for creeping into a Canadian-style system if they're elected. Their public plans are quite the opposite of what I think we need. Single-payer means we extract insurance companies from leeching money and society pays for health costs (thus one payer-the govt.). Hillary's plan calls for mandated insurance (which makes sense, she's the number one payed representative by the contemporary insurance lobby). Obama, as I understand it, would subsidize more health care costs than we currently do, but by no means is his plan SINGLE-PAYER.
OTHER ISSUES?
--Future Iraq policies and combating our hydrocarbon-based economy (Climate Change policies) were exempt, as was Foreign Policy in general. I feel more inclined to support a progressive in these areas than a Republican.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
People like you not only give me faith in our democracy, but in our abilities to empower the necessary components that accompany it -- like cognition.
What would your party platform look like?
Keep writing! I want to hear more from a radically moderate Republican.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
But I don't think there's much radical about me, judging by popular opinion. When you consider what the nation actually thinks in terms of the issues, I'm in the majority. Yet, the people creating the talking points on both the Republican and Democratic sides seem to control the national conversation.
It's like the right-to-life scandal of Terry Schiavo. A huge majority of Republicans support her husband, yet, it seems as though it became a Republican issue.
I simply don't like a small minority hijacking the issues and the small number of drones who defend it without thinking.
well democrat or republican, i am an american first. fuck the electoral college. it is a shame. it makes it so every vote doesn't count in the whole. i realize why they did this then, but in our modern age we shouldn't have to deal with being the 49% that doesn't matter. especially with modern technology and the internet. we should all vote online with a secure, encrypted website.
Yours truly,
.demosthenes
Electoral College or not, there is still going to be 40 to 49.9% who ends up on the losing end of the argument.
What's your beef with the Electoral College?
And what does that have to do with electronic voting?
And, if the losing group gets 49% of the vote, why should they instead be considered winners?
for one, only two parties are really recognized with the electoral college, there are many different parties within our government and within the democratic and republican. there will always be a loser i know this also. i am not saying that the 49% should be anything. i am just saying that overall, with the electoral college, every single vote doesn't matter. i am sure that there have been cases where one couldn't rightfully tell who actually won the election. but a point system based on the population count? that isn't very smart. and not electronic voting, voting through the internet. that way one has to be registered especially to vote and doing so on a secure website would make it very hard to make fake votes.
Yours truly,
.demosthenes
You're not the only one. I read this year that the Electoral College's section in the Constitution has received the most discussion of amendment. And yet, we still got this safeguard against democracy.
Coal is to shaving as nuclear power is to waxing. For the time being, they are both relatively cheaper options, and each is a fast fix to the energy problem. Now, factor global warming back in --"Hairy Sustainability" by A-squared, a ProU blogger