I was shocked the other day when I listened to Lionel calling for the severe beating of Tucker Carlson. Now I don't even know why Carlson even has a job and Rachel Maddow would be a great replacement but Lionel this time crossed a line I always thought was a right wing offense: calling for violence. Doing so I think Lionel discredited Air America and thus he hurt Rachel's chances to get the job even if that was a remote possibility.
He didn't just call for a beating, he depicted the gruesome details: beat him up until he's unconscious then wake him up just to deny him the benefit of unconsciousness and cause more pain. To say something like that over the airwaves severely compromises the mission statement and goals of Air America and more broadly the progressive movement. Therefore I hereby am calling for the resignation of Lionel, call in the show and tell them what you think about advocacy for violence and tell them not to even bring up the "it was a joke" defense...every skinhead does it and it doesn't work.
I always thought that morning slot rightfully belongs to Sam Seder who's latest success includes calling for activism and support of Chris Dodd's filibuster and I believe he also had a hand in Ned Lamont's victory and the marginalization of Joe Lieberman. Lionel is just not as good at this sort of stuff. It seems to me his net effect at airamerica radio has been at most undetectable if not negative. Any thoughts?
Lionel started as a caller in Tampa. I met him a couple times. He's good friends with a Chef friend of mine. Funny guy. They gave him a job on air in Tampa, he eventually quit being a lawyer and went to New York radio. I don't know how he got to Air Hammerhead.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Originally posted by Sawdust: Lionel started as a caller in Tampa. I met him a couple times. He's good friends with a Chef friend of mine. Funny guy. They gave him a job on air in Tampa, he eventually quit being a lawyer and went to New York radio. I don't know how he got to Air Hammerhead.
Funny or not, he is not a progressive that's for sure. That's fine I guess but this latest offense just hurts the rest of the good people at Air America as well. We don't want nut cases representing our side of the debate. Now if the nazis over at nut case radio central call for the beating of Olbermann or Stewart they can point to Air America: you see the other "side" is doing it too. I resent that.
Why, you don't seem to mind the left wing frootloops that think the government flew planes into the trade center. They do as much to turn off normal people as Lionel.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
I can't stand Lionel, and I agree. His high whiny voice is impossible to listen to. He's not funny and not even a professional broadcaster. I would like to hear Stephanie Miller in that slot.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Just to weigh in from the left frooty side, I hope Sawdust remembers that a lot of the truthers are from the right side of the spectrum as well. Just because you find questioning 9/11 to be an embaressment for left, does not equate with someone who is recommending violence. Interestingly it seems like just another of those convienient arguments that can associate 9/11 truth with whatever you can find despicable. You do need the staw men in your repotire since you and those like you who insinuate hysterical attributions onto us and then run from discussion, really have few arguments at your disposal anyway. Sawdust, you have made your fellings known on 9-11 and choose for the most part not to engage in conversation. I can basically respect that, but these swipes are slowly moving you towards the company of those who attack with an attitude that claims they are above discussion. I do not think it is worthy company.It almost reminds me of an analogy in baseball. In the National league if you are a pitcher and you throw at someone, then your time at bat they have the oppurtunity to retaliate. I do not really like equating violence with fair discussion, but the analogy does serve to demonstrate a circumstance where those who provoke are not subject to redrees from those provoked.
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
I have heard Lionel himself reference a couple things about 9/11 (just to tie in the two threads that are ongoing on this thread):
The debris (remains)(wreckage) of the flight that was *shot down* over PA was strewn for miles about. How could that be explained if the plane weren't shot down?
The hole in the Pentagon was quite narrow and showed exposure of the second and third floors, which were intact just inside the wall and some small distance having been blown away. You could see desks, etc., sitting on these relatively undamaged floors. And this was hit by a commercial airliner?
Anybody seen a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon? Didn't think so.
Matt, the "truthers" are a very small percentage of the population. Trust me when I say this. The majority think the truthers are crazy. I'm not talking minor league crazy, I'm talking the whole enchilada certifiable crazy.
I don't think the topic is above discussion, especially if you're running for the Mayor of Crazytown.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Sawdust posted: "Trust me when I say this. The majority think the truthers are crazy. I'm not talking minor league crazy, I'm talking the whole enchilada certifiable crazy."
This post means absolutely nothing. Does a poll of majority opinion indicate anything other than just that: opinion?
Sawdust: dust off your brain & think for yourself.
I am thinking for myself. I've heard eye witnesses say they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, I've see pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon and I've heard a reporter who got next to the Pentagon discribe plane wreckage just after the plane hit Pentagon. I listened to Ted Olson discribe his last conversation with his wife Barbra who was on the plane.
I think my mind is about made up. It was a plane. Sorry if I don't share your opinion that George Bush commissioned Lectroids from the Planet 10 to crash their Ossilation Overthruster into the Pentagon.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Sawdust posted: "I am thinking for myself. I've heard eye witnesses say they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, I've see pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon and I've heard a reporter who got next to the Pentagon discribe plane wreckage just after the plane hit Pentagon. I listened to Ted Olson discribe his last conversation with his wife Barbra who was on the plane."
None of this adds up to physical evidence. All the physical evidence we have is that a large airliner did not hit the building (Pentagon).
Don't know exactly how this was arranged, but think it was not space aliens involved. That is your conjecture, Sawdust.
and: "I've see pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon"
Maybe you could direct us to those pictures?
All the ones I've seen of the Pentagon do not show airliner wreckage. Just a narrow, vertical hole and some charred surrounding area, on the building and the ground.
Going back to the original point of this thread, though: maybe Lionel ought to just challenge Carlson to a fight? Marquis of Queensbury rules or something else agreed upon.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
I can't find the pictures of the plane wreckage on those links
Did investigate on google: found picture of hub of airliner landing gear, which was found inside Pentagon building itself. Drift is that intense fire burnt/melted most of wreckage.
So is this the official story: Upon high-speed impact, wings collapsed in toward fuselage, thereby causing relatively narrow gash in building; momentum of plane carried it well inside building, therefore all wreckage would be inside; then most of it burned beyond recognition?
I'm done with this again. I'm sorry I got myself sucked into discussing it.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Originally posted by BrentBoz-Hell: Going back to the original point of this thread, though: maybe Lionel ought to just challenge Carlson to a fight? Marquis of Queensbury rules or something else agreed upon.
...or maybe perhaps he should manage his blood sugar levels before he gets in front of a mike...or better yet, he should go ahead and join one of them hate talk outfits.
Dave my friend, I'm jumpin' off the crazy train. Some people think the moon landing is fake and pro wresteling is real. I'm good with it.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
This why a lot of message boards give the twoofera whole sub-forum, like on the Randi Rhodes board. It helps to break the woo-woo down into little pieces with a single though behind the theories.
Lionel did show poor investigative skills when he pointed out the clear demarkation between the wingprints and inward-directed flow of aircraft parts. It actually supports the official narrative Explosives would have damaged everything along an expanding path.
It' sort of like shooting one deer with a rifle then shoving a stick of dynamite up anothers ass . Which one will do the greatest damage and afflict the greatest number of soft tissues?
Gun toting, poetry writing liberal retired Army NCO. Live with it.
Posts: 359 | Location: Spanaway, WA | Registered: 19 June 2006
Sawdust- Is it possible for somebody to have serious questions on 9/11, but not to have come to an ultimate conclusion. Do most of the American people think someone that has concerns that we don't have the air defense that we thought we had, believe that person is certifiable? If you think for a minute you have been lied to in any way, does that equate you to a no-planer? We have gone this road before, and you say serious questions are O.K. So where is it that people go over the line? Isn't it really at the point that we imagine that our government would intentionally deceive us that qualifies a truther as loony?
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: I can't stand Lionel, and I agree. His high whiny voice is impossible to listen to. He's not funny and not even a professional broadcaster. I would like to hear Stephanie Miller in that slot.
I have heard Lionel's show about 8 times...we don't get it much on on Air America feed here.... I definitely won't shed a tear if he is pulled...his voice is more made for voice over commercial work...and his show doesn't keep me glued to the radio
Someone I wish would get back on the radio is Marc Maron....I thought his morning show was great...and he had some hilarious running bits like the Right Wing Radio DJ persona he'd snap into, and the Planet Bush dude that would call in...whoever wrote those bits did a pretty good job, and the voice and accent were hilarious..Maron was also very blunt and vrey openly rational thinker on his show, i really loved hearing his shows, even the reruns... the other Mark from his show I heard all nights for a while, but now I don't hear him anymore either...he was a really good radio personality and complimented Maron's really well...anyways,what happened with his show?? why was it 86'd?? anyone know???
Tired of my own You know we like your sisters keep it like a movie in Maine ~ G. Haynes
Posts: 38 | Location: City of Roses | Registered: 02 November 2007
Someone I wish would get back on the radio is Marc Maron....
Maron was great. I always thought Air America's morning lineup is f-d up for some reason. They used to have a perfect show with Kate Winslet and Rachel Maddow called Unfiltered, then they booted that which was the dumbest decision they could have made but Marc Maron was also great, Sam Seder and Mark Maron would be a great morning show...don't even start me on the Young Turks..that's when I stopped listening to their entire morning lineup...
Someone I wish would get back on the radio is Marc Maron....
Maron was great. I always thought Air America's morning lineup is f-d up for some reason. They used to have a perfect show with Kate Winslet and Rachel Maddow called Unfiltered, then they booted that which was the dumbest decision they could have made but Marc Maron was also great, Sam Seder and Mark Maron would be a great morning show...don't even start me on the Young Turks..that's when I stopped listening to their entire morning lineup...
dang...i couldn't agree with you more! I had that same thought about Seder and Maron...they would make a hell of a funny show!!
After I got to thinking about mark Maron's old "Morning Sedition" show, i ended up finding some info...here is an excellent archive site that has all of Morning Seditions old shows (even the ones in early 2006 when he was not syndicated any longer. http://www.thesnotgreensea.com/
Ironically, he was pulled off of KPOJ here in Portland to make room for Thom Hartmann's local show here. So I can honestly say that Thom Hartmann has surprised and impressed me, and I am extremely happy he is doing well....but I wish AAR would take some consideration into bringing Maron back!
Planet Bush, War on Brains, Rapture Watch, Liberal Confessions, Mark the Shark...some of those bits were so funny and cuttingly brilliant with the voices and humor that I had to pull my car over, or sit in my car before going into work for an extra 5-10 minutes because I was laughing so hard! Especially Mort Milfington !!! I think maybe the problem is that some of Maron's writers on the show ended up going to work for Comedy Central......
XANADUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!
Tired of my own You know we like your sisters keep it like a movie in Maine ~ G. Haynes
Posts: 38 | Location: City of Roses | Registered: 02 November 2007
While I can't agree more with the basic premise of this thread, the thought of either Seder or Maron returning to the air makes me shudder. Maron, IIMHO, is the most talentless hack comedian I have ever heard, with Seder not far behind. Their expression of even marginally reasonable political ideas is filled with some much venom and hyperbole that they are effectively unlistenable. Lionel is just a hack whose time will run its course very shortly.
When a true genius enters this world, you will know him by this sign, all the dunces will be in confederacy against him ---Johnathan Swift
Originally posted by raynjuls: While I can't agree more with the basic premise of this thread, the thought of either Seder or Maron returning to the air makes me shudder. Maron, IIMHO, is the most talentless hack comedian I have ever heard, with Seder not far behind. Their expression of even marginally reasonable political ideas is filled with some much venom and hyperbole that they are effectively unlistenable. Lionel is just a hack whose time will run its course very shortly.
Ok, assuming that everybody is just a talentless "hack", you agree that some hacks are better than others right?! I'll take Maron and Seder for any of the morning hosts today. Seder's great contribution is the anger and how he channels it into action. I don't think he is particularly venomous though. Compared to Malloy he's the white pigeon of peace
Maybe some people who are being screwed are unable to keep their cool so they express their anger and hatred with lots of venom on top. Some people are like that. You spit in their face and they for some unfathomable reason won't take it as your god given right and theirs the duty to accept it meekly. It's like a disease, after all the majority of the society will cheerfully take it on the chin and be grateful.
Originally posted by arpad: Maybe some people who are being screwed are unable to keep their cool so they express their anger and hatred with lots of venom on top. Some people are like that. You spit in their face and they for some unfathomable reason won't take it as your god given right and theirs the duty to accept it meekly. It's like a disease, after all the majority of the society will cheerfully take it on the chin and be grateful.
Yeah, America has really dealt Marc & Sam a raw deal... their venom and hatred must certainly be justified...but when Marc refers to the "church-goers in the hinterlands of middle America" as "Christo-Facist zombies", I'm just going to go ahead and say that he's going a little over the top...
When a true genius enters this world, you will know him by this sign, all the dunces will be in confederacy against him ---Johnathan Swift
I don't think there is much doubt that a large percentage of Chrisitians are now in support of fascistic principles, and indeed it seems many of these folks are completely unaware that these attitudes are in violation of the principles that Christ taught, so unless Raynjuls complaint is that the statement is too large a generalization, I do not see a problem with the statement
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
Originally posted by arpad: Maybe some people who are being screwed are unable to keep their cool so they express their anger and hatred with lots of venom on top. Some people are like that. You spit in their face and they for some unfathomable reason won't take it as your god given right and theirs the duty to accept it meekly. It's like a disease, after all the majority of the society will cheerfully take it on the chin and be grateful.
that's some rebel rousing speech there buddy, what are you, some Hungarian?! keep it up
Originally posted by Mattnapa: I don't think there is much doubt that a large percentage of Chrisitians are now in support of fascistic principles, and indeed it seems many of these folks are completely unaware that these attitudes are in violation of the principles that Christ taught, so unless Raynjuls complaint is that the statement is too large a generalization, I do not see a problem with the statement
I couldn't agree more. Communism and fascism were not successful because they were only supported by a small fringe of the population.
Lionel is the best thing AAR has going for it as an am show. He certainely has a different way of looking at things and yes you must be quick to catch his sarcasams but he is great as an entree to Thom.
Lionel was proably making a joke at the time about Tucker and insinuating what Tucker would say if the shoe was on the other foot.
Originally posted by misterfact@yahoo.com: Let's also fire talk show host who told kids on the air that breathing fingernail polish remover (acetone) won't hurt you!
Also two of them who said, "breathing secondhand cigarette smoke is not a health hazard!"
Also Mike Gallagher who said that "Radon isn't a health hazard!"
If you want to talk about advocating violence on the radio-how about trying to be a equal opportunity DEPLORER!
Originally posted by newguard: Lionel is the best thing AAR has going for it as an am show. He certainely has a different way of looking at things and yes you must be quick to catch his sarcasams but he is great as an entree to Thom.
I couldn't disagree more. Many people have gallows humor and a healthy sense of sarcasm, that wasn't my objection to Lionel.
quote:
Originally posted by newguard: Lionel was proably making a joke at the time about Tucker and insinuating what Tucker would say if the shoe was on the other foot.
"probably?!" you are right I shall post the audio asap before people try the "it was a joke" defense.
quote:
Originally posted by newguard: PS; how about a Nader/Hartmann ticket?
Nader is a joke, Hartmann would never run for office and if he would I doubt it would be on a "let's run to split the progressive vote" platform so that he can lay low for 4 years with no party base or real organizing and then all of a sudden emerge as this truth telling savior of humanity.
Sszabo- I could not disagree more about Nader. I know it is an old argument and one that brings out great emotion, but I cannot let your comments go unchallenged. The abuse by the Democrats and the media to discredit and illegally block Nader's ballot access was treasonable. If you do not like the fact that myself and others wish to vote for him fine, but attempts to "FORCE" us not to vote for him should be criminal. And in my opinion those who claim he "interferes" with democracy by running are delusional believers of "the cause." You either are with us or against us right?
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
Originally posted by Mattnapa: Sszabo- I could not disagree more about Nader. I know it is an old argument and one that brings out great emotion, but I cannot let your comments go unchallenged. The abuse by the Democrats and the media to discredit and illegally block Nader's ballot access was treasonable. If you do not like the fact that myself and others wish to vote for him fine, but attempts to "FORCE" us not to vote for him should be criminal. And in my opinion those who claim he "interferes" with democracy by running are delusional believers of "the cause." You either are with us or against us right?
this is an absolute misunderstanding of the US political process. the dems do what they have to do in a screwed up system to prevent their base from fracturing. Whatever I think about Nader as a person and an activist his role in the electoral process is highly subversive irregardless of his motivations which I am not in the position to even try to guess.
Fact is even in parliamentary democracies where 3rd parties and 4th and 5th major parties are common you build up your organization on the grassroots level and form coalitions before you even attempt to take the highest office in the land which by default is for the biggest gorilla on the block, ie in this case the democratic party. A guy like Nader should shoot for head of the EPA or some appointment like that as part of the Green Party - Democratic Party coalition and they should be allies not enemies. In a winner take all situation there is no room for 3rd parties and that's a fact. Nader should fight locally for instant runoff elections and fair voting which he does well, and until that's not achieved he shouldn't split the democratic base.
On another note, here is the audio I promised just so we know what this thread is all about. I also edited the leading post to this thread to contain this link. I will most likely remove the youtube video in a week or 2 especially if it gets hit hard because I don't want to damage air america's reputation and I am hoping they will take the right action. Even if Lionel stays on I hope he will never say something stupid as this again. this is not funny and if there is someone who finds it funny there is something wrong with that person.
Sszabo- The crux of the matter for me is the effort of those in the democratic organization that actively sought to block Nader votes, you did not even acknowledge the point.
From sszabo
Whatever I think about Nader as a person and an activist his role in the electoral process is highly subversive irregardless of his motivations which I am not in the position to even try to guess.
As to the question of grassroots political organizing, I could not agree more that it is a political necessity. And I agree Nader needed to use this approach much more than he did, but why does the standard apply to the democrats as well? Lets face it American's are not inclined towards grassroots organizing (which needs to be distinguished from simple get out the vote efforts), and all of that dysfunction should not fall on Nader's shoulder. By the way, if it's Hillary, run Ralph run. I would like to think I have the right to vote for who I want to, and that others in the democracy would respect and work to ensure my right to do so.
You have established his role as highly subversive, why?
From sszabo- In a winner take all situation there is no room for 3rd parties and that's a fact
Both of these statements seem a little rhetorical on issues that are key to the argument. Please clarify sszabo. Clearly 3rd parties are a legal part of our Presedential elections, so I assume you mean this in some other way.
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
Originally posted by Mattnapa: Sszabo- The crux of the matter for me is the effort of those in the democratic organization that actively sought to block Nader votes, you did not even acknowledge the point.
No, I did acknowledge it in fact I answered it: they did the right thing by blocking Nader and Nader should not even be allowed to run for president without the support of a major political party.
Do you know 1 example, anywhere in the world where the party that commands less than 5% of the total electorate has even representation in Parliament let alone is contesting the highest office of the land? I am curious to know under what democratic system is that possible or is considered reasonable. Nader's candidacy is a political farce and nuisance with the only possible result of fracturing the left.
If the Green Party was a major political force in the US, let's say with 20% of the electorate behind it and the Democrats would have 30-35%, Nader could be a reasonable choice for vice president, but even then he would be out of line to demand presidency. If the %s were reversed I would agree: Nader would have all the right to the presidency in case of a liberal coalition victory. but again: we don't even have a parliamentary system here, so the point is mute anyway.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: sszabo,
Originally posted by Mattnapa: I don't think there is much doubt that a large percentage of Chrisitians are now in support of fascistic principles, and indeed it seems many of these folks are completely unaware that these attitudes are in violation of the principles that Christ taught, so unless Raynjuls complaint is that the statement is too large a generalization, I do not see a problem with the statement
Wow. now that's an pretty broad brush. "A large percentage of Christians"? Really? Data please. While a large number of Christians may not be as Christ-like as they should, are they really facists? I gotta call bullshit unless you can provide more than anecdotal evidence of this generalization.
When a true genius enters this world, you will know him by this sign, all the dunces will be in confederacy against him ---Johnathan Swift
Wow. now that's an pretty broad brush. "A large percentage of Christians"? Really? Data please. While a large number of Christians may not be as Christ-like as they should, are they really facists? I gotta call bullshit unless you can provide more than anecdotal evidence of this generalization.
Raynjuls- I probably would not have used the word fascist a few years ago, but the Christian right has nothing but praise for the fake war on fear. I am really quite dissapointed that so many Christians have abandon the message of peace that Christ preached. I am not trying to be meanspirited Raynjuls, but I cannot defend these people even if they have some misguided good intentions behind them. Sszabo seems to follow this issue closely, and I assume that some of the links he has provided are the type of information you are demanding. I have the impression that a good percentage of the Christian right still support the occupation and the stripping of the civil rights in this country. They are at best extreme authoritarians with a missionary zeal for military domination sanctioned by the corporate state.
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
Sszabo- I assume the reason the Democrats were justified in blocking Nader is because he did not have a nomination of a party? Really, this is your reason? So I assume if he gets the Green party or some other party nomination you will not think it justified to block his or their access. I know Perot was able to turn his effort into a so called party, but I am at a loss as to why a party makes a candidate legitamte but an independent candidacy is wothy of tactics that keep people from voting for said candidate. Are there limits to blocking independent candidates? Perhaps a caging campaign against DTS voters are in order since they seem to not be affiliating to a party properly. Since you think you should be allowed to decide who I vote for sszabo, could you back up that opinion with either election law or anything in the Constitution. I imagine we are going to get Thom's Federalist 10 argument, but I have seen no indication that Madison railed against third parties. Instead it seemed he argued against factionalism in general, and I would submitt that your adherence to a doctrinal party stance is more to the point of what Madison is arguing against than any danger Nader has presented. And just for the record there is no proof that Nader takes votes from Democrats, but even if he had that is their problem not his.
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
Originally posted by Mattnapa: Sszabo- I assume the reason the Democrats were justified in blocking Nader is because he did not have a nomination of a party? Really, this is your reason? So I assume if he gets the Green party or some other party nomination you will not think it justified to block his or their access. I know Perot was able to turn his effort into a so called party, but I am at a loss as to why a party makes a candidate legitamte but an independent candidacy is wothy of tactics that keep people from voting for said candidate. Are there limits to blocking independent candidates? Perhaps a caging campaign against DTS voters are in order since they seem to not be affiliating to a party properly.
It's amazing how you are capable to operate in your parallel reality if you ignore the other side's arguments...well, if it works for the right wing crackpots you probably think why not suspend reason on our side as well In fact I answered all of these points above, but OK I'll try 1 more time.
In a winner take all game like the US system, democracy 1.0, there is no "legitimate independent candidate" because that's not how the system was designed.
What I said was that the highest office in the land should be elected by the majority of a winning coalition and the reason is simple: it is not fair to undermine the popular will by playing electoral tricks. Again: show me another country where it is allowed for the little fish to contest the highest office. The reason why Nader could not run for president of France or Chancellor of Germany or Prime Minister of England is simple: he is not head of the largest fraction of any winning coalition and thus he is not representing the largest electoral group.
If even European democracy 2.0 doesn't allow this which was designed to allow 3rd parties in the game what makes you think that democracy 1.0 can deal with it?! Again: try some reality based arguments not what you feel or think is "real" or "fair".
quote:
Originally posted by Mattnapa: Since you think you should be allowed to decide who I vote for sszabo, could you back up that opinion with either election law or anything in the Constitution. I imagine we are going to get Thom's Federalist 10 argument, but I have seen no indication that Madison railed against third parties. Instead it seemed he argued against factionalism in general, and I would submitt that your adherence to a doctrinal party stance is more to the point of what Madison is arguing against than any danger Nader has presented. And just for the record there is no proof that Nader takes votes from Democrats, but even if he had that is their problem not his.
I made no arguments based on the Constitution. In fact I think that 18th century document is outdated and it's one of the many obstacles keeping the USA from becoming a truly free country.
As for proof that Nader takes votes away there are plenty of well documented ones, of course you don't bother with facts but I'll post here some for other people's sake who hopefully still believe in them:
2000 Bush won Florida by 514 votes. Nader got cca. 97,500 votes and if we assume that more than 50% of those were left leaning which I think we can safely do so, unless you want to say that you are supporting a right wing candidate , that cost Gore about 50,000 votes as opposed to 500. Simple math really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election...Final_certified_vote
As far as I am concerned Nader supporters are traitors to progressivism whether they know it or not. Ignorance was perhaps a legitimate defense in 2000, by today that's a mute point.
I have not ignored your arguments sszabo, I am just asking you to clarify if your claims are legal statutes or simply opinions. It is clear that by opinion alone you feel you can control who I vote for. Dangerous as hell. Principles be damned, I want my guy to win
From sszabo In a winner take all game like the US system, democracy 1.0, there is no "legitimate independent candidate" because that's not how the system was designed.
I guess we are getting nowhere because statements such as this say nothing. Indeed legally speaking independent candidates can appear on the presidential ballot, so what is it that you are referring to? Further if you can't provide any legal justification for the treason on democracy, could you provide at least an ethical justification? Or could you answer the question if you would support those who might try to block Nader's access if he was the candidate of a recognized party?
From sszabo What I said was that the highest office in the land should be elected by the majority of a winning coalition and the reason is simple: it is not fair to undermine the popular will by playing electoral tricks
But apparently keeping popular candidates off the ballot is not an electoral trick. You refer to the "popular will." I guess this is the popular will of not allowing people to vote for who they want, so I am not really familiar with this version of reality. This must be something peculiar in my parallel sense of reality.
As for your points in other countries, it has nothing to do with it. We are talking about the electoral regulations in this country. Again if you feel there is an ethical principle involved please elucidate it, but Nader is not running for Chancellor of Germany. Also they use parliamentary system that I would accept here any day, so the comparison is not apt.
From sszabo Again: try some reality based arguments not what you feel or think is "real" or "fair".
You wish. My arguments are clear. Legally, independent candidates have the right to run. Ethically, a candidate that is desired by a significant portion of the electorate should be available to that portion of the electorate to vote for. Are you really going to claim that limiting the field is more democratic?
So you may consider us traitors to progressivism if you like, but I consider your position as traitorous to democracy
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
Originally posted by sszabo: Again: try some reality based arguments not what you feel or think is "real" or "fair".
You wish. My arguments are clear. Legally, independent candidates have the right to run.
Of course and my contention is that legally the US system is inadequate exactly because it is not designed for 3rd party candidates: it does not have instant runoff voting and ways to get rid of the spoiler effect. That was in fact my point. I was never contesting the legality of what Nader was doing: your argument is a big fat strawman as usual.
quote:
Originally posted by Mattnapa: Ethically, a candidate that is desired by a significant portion of the electorate should be available to that portion of the electorate to vote for. Are you really going to claim that limiting the field is more democratic?
I also haven't made a moral argument because I said I don't want to guess Nader's motivation. I simply pointed out the facts which you so gallantly ignored again while stating at the same time that you didn't ignore my argument. That's what I am talking about: you create yourself an alternate reality pretty much as a right winger would do!
here are the facts once more and I am still waiting for a relevant answer:
Do you dispute that Nader got 97,500 votes in Florida in 2000 while Gore lost by 514 votes?! Do you dispute that republicans are demonstrably gaming the system by getting Nader on the ballot everywhere so they can to chip away votes from democrats?! How can you skip past these facts with a straight face?!
These are the real issues you haven't even attempted to answer and for a good reason: these are the exact points where you loose the argument.
Originally posted by Mattnapa: Raynjuls- I probably would not have used the word fascist a few years ago, but the Christian right has nothing but praise for the fake war on fear. I am really quite dissapointed that so many Christians have abandon the message of peace that Christ preached. I am not trying to be meanspirited Raynjuls, but I cannot defend these people even if they have some misguided good intentions behind them. Sszabo seems to follow this issue closely, and I assume that some of the links he has provided are the type of information you are demanding. I have the impression that a good percentage of the Christian right still support the occupation and the stripping of the civil rights in this country. They are at best extreme authoritarians with a missionary zeal for military domination sanctioned by the corporate state.
With all due respect to both of you, there are a couple of Billion "Christians". Perhaps 60 to 70% of Americans identify themselves as such. To lump them all into the "Christian Right" seems a tad stereotypical. For my part, people like Fallwell, Robertson and most of the Christian Coalition folks do not represent me or really anyone I know. Yes they are politically active, and do manage to successfully back a candidate from time to time, but most are either so corrupt or stupid that they fail miserably. There are a great many Christians that donate time and money to charity, that work to better their community through service and that are generally pretty good and productive citizens. To label them "facists" because they share the basis of their faith with the organizations that you cite is patently ridiculous. My question is, do you similarly paint all Muslins as terrorists?
When a true genius enters this world, you will know him by this sign, all the dunces will be in confederacy against him ---Johnathan Swift
Originally posted by raynjuls: With all due respect to both of you, there are a couple of Billion "Christians". Perhaps 60 to 70% of Americans identify themselves as such. To lump them all into the "Christian Right" seems a tad stereotypical. For my part, people like Fallwell, Robertson and most of the Christian Coalition folks do not represent me or really anyone I know. Yes they are politically active, and do manage to successfully back a candidate from time to time, but most are either so corrupt or stupid that they fail miserably. There are a great many Christians that donate time and money to charity, that work to better their community through service and that are generally pretty good and productive citizens. To label them "facists" because they share the basis of their faith with the organizations that you cite is patently ridiculous. My question is, do you similarly paint all Muslins as terrorists?
this is the classic moving target of a strawman argument: 1) the original claim was about a "considerable percentage" no specifics and definitely no "majority" or "all" as you suggest here. 2) your desperate attempt to forge the original argument is only slightly less desperate than your ridiculous strategy to pull out the muslim card as a weapon of last resort
Originally posted by Coalage500: Okay then...I'll bite.
What's a considerable percentage?
to be precise it was "large percentage" which is the same as "considerable". That's the point, this is a relative term: it can be 1%, 5%, 25% or it can be 50% although not likely because for 45-55% a more likely term would be "half" and for more than 50% it's much more convincing to say "majority"...so I would guess definitely less than 45%..if I had to guess, luckily I don't because that wasn't the point
Raynjuls As to generalizing, is the question about the tactic itself, or is it about the accuracy of the statement. And I suppose that depends on defenitions. My defenition for a Christo fascist zombie would be those individuals who are zealous is there Christianity(especially in its relation to making moral judgements on others), and support a religous connection with our military cleansing of the bad people of the world. The nature of this religous connection is absolute, absolute might and absoloute right find their home in this fascistic philosophy. There can be no discontent or discussion because the mission is about good and evil alone. Discussion either becomes an unecessary exercise towards a conclusion we already know, or it becomes an alarm to warn the righteous of an insurrectionary attitude. I think the connection between Christian Americans and the imperial juggernaut is undeniable Raynjuls. If you wish to acknowledge in genral that Christianity in America is playing a huge role towards feeding the war fevor then it is illogicall to then claim the sum of the parts that make up Christianity play the same role. In other if Christianity is at fault, then Christians are at fault. Raynjuls, you make the point that there are a lot of Christians are seemingly good moral citizens in our communities, and how could I call them fascist zombies. It is a great mystery how these people with such pleasant demeanors, can at the same time hold attitudes that are based oon fear and violence. I don't know how such contradictions can place in people, but I have seen enough personally to know that it does. Whether such people are responsible or whether Christianity is responsible for what has happened, I make no claim. There are many forces that have brought us to the society we have, all I know is there seems to be a connection a mile wide with the righteousness of Christian Americans, and the absolute righteousness of our military and corporate mission. I don't think you really deny the connection is there Raynjuls, it is just difficult to see these seemingly well meaning people and see them connected to the attitudes that are likely to bring such hideous outcomes for the world
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
From sszabo it does not have instant runoff voting and ways to get rid of the spoiler effect.
Perhaps we both agree that IRV would do much to alleviate the problem here, but in the mean time we have what we have. You can claim that I have a straw man, but any such suggestion would have to be based on a notion that you laid out the premise of your argument in a clear manner which you have not. It saeems that your claim is that Nader and third party candidates have unfair influence on elections. But that claim is completely arbitrary. It also portrays the big party candidates as innocent bystanders that are plagued by undeserving "spoilers." You can write an sob story you like, but the fact is elections are about providing voters with candidates that voters are interested in voting for. Any attempt to "fix" the process is anti democratic. I am curious, if there was third party right wing candidate sucking votes away from the repubs, would your principles be offended then as well? I think the old T.R line of principles before self interest is a phrase I try to follow. It seems that Democrats who wish to pursue policies that infringe on others right to vote have really lost sight of their principles
From sszabo I simply pointed out the facts which you so gallantly ignored again while stating at the same time that you didn't ignore my argument. That's what I am talking about: you create yourself an alternate reality pretty much as a right winger would do!
I have no idea what this means. But since you mention righties and how you may remind me of one- I have always been surprised how righties are willing to ignore such standard principles such as fair play and honesty in order to accomplish certain ends. Like Florida when virtually no Republican seemed interested in a fair accounting of the vote. One would have thought that some principled Repubs would want a fair accounting of the "will of the people". Instead every tactic is used to win, and that is exactly consistent with the attitude you portray sszabo. There is no reason to believe third parties are ruining democracy unless you start with the premise that your side must win.
From sszabo Do you dispute that Nader got 97,500 votes in Florida in 2000 while Gore lost by 514 votes?! Do you dispute that republicans are demonstrably gaming the system by getting Nader on the ballot everywhere so they can to chip away votes from democrats?! How can you skip past these facts with a straight face?!
You start again with a premise that if Nader cost Gore the election then that is a miscarriage of electoral justice, why? Whether repubs have gamed things is a differnt argument of whether Dems have buisness blocking Nader. Unless you believe two wrongs make a right. Of course it is not that clear that Repubs are "gaming." Indeed a good amount of Repubs legitametly support Nader, so they should be allowed contribute like anyone else. Yes there is also organized efforts by those who wish to see Nader's vote totals cut into Dem's. and while its not a perfect world they have every right to do so. Getting someone on the ballot is a very different tactic that trying to get someone off. One increase democracy, the other limits it. What is your alternative sszabo that we have only two parties? As to whether Nader cost Gore the election Again a completely arbitrary analysis. In election as close as this you can point to any small change of what could have been and claim see that is what the difference was. There were votes for Buchanan and others that could have taken away from Bush as well, and there is reason to believe that near polling time Nader's vote was split close to 50/50. But even if we do go that if Nader was not around Gore might have won so what? It certainly is not proof of a faulty system of elections that needs interfence from others on who gets to run.
Third party choices can go both ways. The Dems have every opportunity to support Libertarian and American Independent candidates if they like. If the Repubs were to make large scale efforts to block voters of these parties I would be outraged as well. But as far as I know, no such allegations exist. Instead of being proactive in engaging the Nader voters the democrats show contempt for our decision making process, by of course limiting our abilities to have one. Yet we should fell guilty about not supporting this group of folks who have nothing but contempt in our abilities to cast our own ballot. I think you and the others like to delude yourself with the notion that this all some sort of mistake. You believe that all progressives really wanted to vote for democrats, but because this abberation named Nader came along that he stole the votes that should have been the Dems. It also that seem many of you do believe that Nader voters "do not understand" that they are being manipulated by Ralph in some way. And since Nader voters are not aware of what we are doing it is O.K for you to force us to vote for democrats
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
this is the classic moving target of a strawman argument: 1) the original claim was about a "considerable percentage" no specifics and definitely no "majority" or "all" as you suggest here. 2) your desperate attempt to forge the original argument is only slightly less desperate than your ridiculous strategy to pull out the muslim card as a weapon of last resort
Oh please, do you really want to split hairs over what a "large percentage" is. Fine, Matt didn't say "all", but I asked for something more than anecdotal evidence, and I got a couple of articles from people with an obvious hard on for "theocracy"... and substanative data on the number of self-identified Christians in the US versus those that actually belong to organizations like the Christian Coalition?
As to the question regarding a similar characterization of Muslims, nice dodge, but you forgot to answer the question. C'mom, its yes or no, its just one question, whats the big deal...
When a true genius enters this world, you will know him by this sign, all the dunces will be in confederacy against him ---Johnathan Swift
Originally posted by Mattnapa: Raynjuls As to generalizing, is the question about the tactic itself, or is it about the accuracy of the statement. And I suppose that depends on defenitions. My defenition for a Christo fascist zombie would be those individuals who are zealous is there Christianity(especially in its relation to making moral judgements on others), and support a religous connection with our military cleansing of the bad people of the world. The nature of this religous connection is absolute, absolute might and absoloute right find their home in this fascistic philosophy. There can be no discontent or discussion because the mission is about good and evil alone. Discussion either becomes an unecessary exercise towards a conclusion we already know, or it becomes an alarm to warn the righteous of an insurrectionary attitude. I think the connection between Christian Americans and the imperial juggernaut is undeniable Raynjuls. If you wish to acknowledge in genral that Christianity in America is playing a huge role towards feeding the war fevor then it is illogicall to then claim the sum of the parts that make up Christianity play the same role. In other if Christianity is at fault, then Christians are at fault. Raynjuls, you make the point that there are a lot of Christians are seemingly good moral citizens in our communities, and how could I call them fascist zombies. It is a great mystery how these people with such pleasant demeanors, can at the same time hold attitudes that are based oon fear and violence. I don't know how such contradictions can place in people, but I have seen enough personally to know that it does. Whether such people are responsible or whether Christianity is responsible for what has happened, I make no claim. There are many forces that have brought us to the society we have, all I know is there seems to be a connection a mile wide with the righteousness of Christian Americans, and the absolute righteousness of our military and corporate mission. I don't think you really deny the connection is there Raynjuls, it is just difficult to see these seemingly well meaning people and see them connected to the attitudes that are likely to bring such hideous outcomes for the world
Sorry, just have to agree to disagree on this one. As a member of the "church-goers in the hinterland of middle America", I don't see the attitude that you express. Most social conservatives (a group I DON'T belong to), have no great love of Bush or his infatuation with corporate America, because he doesn't care about their issues. Likewise, I have always thought the Iraq invasion has been a HUGE waste of lives, resources and money.
When a true genius enters this world, you will know him by this sign, all the dunces will be in confederacy against him ---Johnathan Swift
Originally posted by raynjuls: Sorry, just have to agree to disagree on this one. As a member of the "church-goers in the hinterland of middle America", I don't see the attitude that you express. Most social conservatives (a group I DON'T belong to), have no great love of Bush or his infatuation with corporate America, because he doesn't care about their issues. Likewise, I have always thought the Iraq invasion has been a HUGE waste of lives, resources and money.
I think you are right about this. that's why it's unlikely that America will turn into Germany 1933. Normal people who understand what Bush and the neo cons are all about and also reject christian dominionism are ultimately the majority of Christians...at least let's hope so. that however does not mean that what Chris Hodges and Mark Maron were talking about is not a real phenomenon and that "christo-fascism" is still not a large percentage and not a real danger to our Republic. I see people on blogs and the media spewing venom in the name of religion all the time: they hate muslims, atheists, liberals and minorities of all sorts and they are not ready to compromise with anybody.
To make a comparison: communism is not a real danger today since it's dead as an ideology it's utterly discredited and it's in the same position fascism was in the 60s. that doesn't mean that 40 years from now it will not reemerge with the support of disenfranchised desperate and politically manipulated masses.
Raynjuls- I have tried to express my belief that there much that is honorable in Christianity and Christians. There was much that was honorable about the John Wayne version of post WW 11 heroism as well. Yet these versions of heroism and honor have been blinded by the fervor and lack of introspection over the years until we have reached the state we have today. In my opinion we now have an imperial police state. If you do not agree that this is the case in America, or close to the case, then we should have a discussion about that instead. The whole premise of my argument must first be predicated on where we are now, and trying to look back on how we got here. If you agree things have gone wrong, then you must at least be willing to look at how Christianity has played a role. Certainly you must agree Christianity is pivotal to our culture, so anywhere the culture has gone Christianity has helped it get there. I guess you perceive that I am saying Christians are disproportionately responsible, or perhaps disproportionately causative if you prefer, in bringing us to this state. Indeed I am saying this to some degree, to exactly what degree I am not certain. For me, criteria on the issue is tough to come by. Since virtually all Americans are in denial to some degree about what is happening, it makes things like opinion polls more difficult to discern Perhaps it is unfortunate that the Falwell's and Robertson's are the Christian leaders that we associate with Christian values these days. I do not doubt that there might be a significant portion of Christians in America that are fighting to have different leadership, and that those efforts are being squashed by powerful non democratic interests. But you must understand these are the leaders we see. Please tell me the last significant Christian, Protestant in particular, who was known for his message of peace. However I do not believe that my assessment is based on Christian leadership,rather, like you Raynjuls, based on personal experience. I see all the wrappings of compassion and love in my Christian friends and neighbors, but I am sorry there is a dark side nonetheless. A great many of them have attitude towards capital punishment and warfare that are just not Christian in my opinion. Perhaps the argument is really about how much is our Christian idealism of the heroic warrior misplaced, and to what degree is there a denial for Christianso to look at this issue.
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
Originally posted by raynjuls: Oh please, do you really want to split hairs over what a "large percentage" is. Fine, Matt didn't say "all", but I asked for something more than anecdotal evidence, and I got a couple of articles from people with an obvious hard on for "theocracy"... and substanative data on the number of self-identified Christians in the US versus those that actually belong to organizations like the Christian Coalition?
the best data that I can find places the number of Christian fundamentalists between 10% and 40% of the American population. That's a pretty large number, anywhere between 30 million and 120 million people, certainly larger than most minority groups who also tend to vote in block. That's why they are dangerous. They don't need to be 40% to sway elections and force politicians to follow their stupidity. Look how far did we get on stem cell research and family planning solutions since Bush came to office?! It can be proven that millions of people did and will die worldwide in the next few years of diseases that could have been cured 10-15 years earlier if it wasn't to this particular anti science voting block.
Originally posted by raynjuls: As to the question regarding a similar characterization of Muslims, nice dodge, but you forgot to answer the question. C'mom, its yes or no, its just one question, whats the big deal...
I don't know anything about muslims, I speak no arabic, farsi, urdu or pashtoo, I haven't lived in the middle east I haven't even been there and not planning to go in this lifetime, do you?! It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and frankly I don't give a hoot about it. Ask something relevant, quantitative and specific.
Originally posted by raynjuls: As to the question regarding a similar characterization of Muslims, nice dodge, but you forgot to answer the question. C'mom, its yes or no, its just one question, whats the big deal...
I would answer that U.S has aproven record as an imperialist power, while the Muslims have no proven track record as terrorists. Take away 9/11 and you really have no evidence that Muslims are more involved in terror than any other group or religion. So I would say false analogy Raynjuls.
Posts: 462 | Location: California | Registered: 24 April 2007
Originally posted by Mattnapa: Originally posted by raynjuls: As to the question regarding a similar characterization of Muslims, nice dodge, but you forgot to answer the question. C'mom, its yes or no, its just one question, whats the big deal...
I would answer that U.S has aproven record as an imperialist power, while the Muslims have no proven track record as terrorists. Take away 9/11 and you really have no evidence that Muslims are more involved in terror than any other group or religion. So I would say false analogy Raynjuls.
No I think he was referring to islamo-fascism as opposed to christo-fascism, which I personally believe it's the dumbest idea since fascism is a white man's invention and not a midle eastern ideology but anyhow I am not an expert in islam so I wouldn't even know ehre to start to collect information of how many muslims believe in fascism.
Originally posted by Mattnapa: I don't think there is much doubt that a large percentage of Chrisitians are now in support of fascistic principles, and indeed it seems many of these folks are completely unaware that these attitudes are in violation of the principles that Christ taught, so unless Raynjuls complaint is that the statement is too large a generalization, I do not see a problem with the statement
Originally posted by sszabo: the best data that I can find places the number of Christian fundamentalists between 10% and 40% of the American population. That's a pretty large number, anywhere between 30 million and 120 million people, certainly larger than most minority groups who also tend to vote in block.
So exercising their legitimate right to vote makes them facists? Or is it just the fact that you don't subscribe to their particular world view that makes them facists?
quote:
Look how far did we get on stem cell research and family planning solutions since Bush came to office?! It can be proven that millions of people did and will die worldwide in the next few years of diseases that could have been cured 10-15 years earlier if it wasn't to this particular anti science voting block.
While I do not support the ban on new lines of embryonic stem cell research (my mother died of Parkinsons), I'm not sure that in today's R&D environment that you can come anywhere close to "proving" that this policy will result in millions of avoidable deaths, particularly within any specific time frame. Likewise, I believe a recent development in non-embryonic stem cell research has rendered the point largely moot.
quote:
I don't know anything about muslims, I speak no arabic, farsi, urdu or pashtoo, I haven't lived in the middle east I haven't even been there and not planning to go in this lifetime, do you?! It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and frankly I don't give a hoot about it. Ask something relevant, quantitative and specific.
The question is relevant. If someone is willing to label a "large percentage" of Christians as facists on the basis of their political agenda, it is reasonable to ask if the same person will label a "large percentage" of Muslims as terrorists on the basis of their demonstrable behavior over the last 25 years. Language & location hardly enter into it. The question is do you merely judge Christians so harshly / broadly or do you extend your stereotyping to all religions on an equal basis?
When a true genius enters this world, you will know him by this sign, all the dunces will be in confederacy against him ---Johnathan Swift
Originally posted by Mattnapa: I don't think there is much doubt that a large percentage of Chrisitians are now in support of fascistic principles, and indeed it seems many of these folks are completely unaware that these attitudes are in violation of the principles that Christ taught, so unless Raynjuls complaint is that the statement is too large a generalization, I do not see a problem with the statement
I believe this would be termed a logical fallacy. What you are intimating is that because Hitler was a Nazi and Hitler went to church (Catholic or otherwise), then by extension, the church and its followers must also be Nazis. Wiki illustrates it as "s is a P, and also s is a Q, therefore all P's are Q's"
When a true genius enters this world, you will know him by this sign, all the dunces will be in confederacy against him ---Johnathan Swift
Originally posted by sszabo: the best data that I can find places the number of Christian fundamentalists between 10% and 40% of the American population. That's a pretty large number, anywhere between 30 million and 120 million people, certainly larger than most minority groups who also tend to vote in block.
So exercising their legitimate right to vote makes them facists? Or is it just the fact that you don't subscribe to their particular world view that makes them facists?
No, but your pointless and ad hominem questions are telling of the fact that you have no answers to the data that possibly 10% or more of the US electorate is extremely ignorant and dangerous voting block that doesn't believe in science and believes in violence as a political means to a political end.
Stemcell research was just an example ok perhaps a bad one: evolution and global warming would have been much more relevant in this context but the point remains the same.
About "labeling large percentages" this or that. I am willing to label a certain percentage of the muslim population supporters of terrorism if you insist, but a) I am not sure about the % like I am about christian fundamentalism and b) I regard that philosophy a natural self defense mechanism after all it's our troops and our oil companies that are killing & robbing their people in far greater numbers than their suicide bombers ever hope to achieve.
It's always interesting 2 me how some people demand a higher standard of proof from their adversary that they are willing to subject themselves to, just curious: what % of muslims do YOU think is supporting terrorism and what actual sources prompted your question?! since you seem to be so self righteous about this ow irrelevant point?!
Whether you noticed it or not, I'm not the one who started the labeling process. I merely quoted what I considered hyperbole by Marc Maron, and the response was "No, we think that kind of labeling and stereotyping is accurate and ok". If you can't post without getting pissy about someone disagreeing with you, then I won't incite you any further.
When a true genius enters this world, you will know him by this sign, all the dunces will be in confederacy against him ---Johnathan Swift
Originally posted by raynjuls: Whether you noticed it or not, I'm not the one who started the labeling process. I merely quoted what I considered hyperbole by Marc Maron, and the response was "No, we think that kind of labeling and stereotyping is accurate and ok". If you can't post without getting pissy about someone disagreeing with you, then I won't incite you any further.
But I just proved it with stats (10%-40%), not labels, that it is more than just a "hyperbola"...
What do you think average nazis were "FOR" the concentration camps, or that Adolf ran his campaign promising incinerators for the jews?! These fake Christians are the most ardent opponents of political correctness, I think you insult them by appealing to political correctness in their defense
Originally posted by raynjuls: Whether you noticed it or not, I'm not the one who started the labeling process. I merely quoted what I considered hyperbole by Marc Maron, and the response was "No, we think that kind of labeling and stereotyping is accurate and ok". If you can't post without getting pissy about someone disagreeing with you, then I won't incite you any further.
But I just proved it with stats (10%-40%), not labels, that it is more than just a "hyperbola"...
What do you think average nazis were "FOR" the concentration camps, or that Adolf ran his campaign promising incinerators for the jews?! These fake Christians are the most ardent opponents of political correctness, I think you insult them by appealing to political correctness in their defense
What you "proved" was that 10 - 40% might be considered fundamentalists. Unless you automatically equate fundamentalists with facists (which I don't) then you haven't really proved much of anything with your stats. In fact your own citations regarding the membership of the Christian Coalition suggest that their membership is a decidedly SMALL percentage of Christians.
When a true genius enters this world, you will know him by this sign, all the dunces will be in confederacy against him ---Johnathan Swift
Originally posted by arpad: Maybe some people who are being screwed are unable to keep their cool so they express their anger and hatred with lots of venom on top. Some people are like that. You spit in their face and they for some unfathomable reason won't take it as your god given right and theirs the duty to accept it meekly. It's like a disease, after all the majority of the society will cheerfully take it on the chin and be grateful.
Yeah, America has really dealt Marc & Sam a raw deal... their venom and hatred must certainly be justified...but when Marc refers to the "church-goers in the hinterlands of middle America" as "Christo-Facist zombies", I'm just going to go ahead and say that he's going a little over the top...
Errrrrrrrrrrr.....Actually it is "Christo Zombie FacistBrigade" Brigade was the word we were looking for, sorry please play again.
hey wait a second ...this isn't you posting on this board is it Pedejo The Revolutionary??? oh my god, I bet it is!!!! oh joy
Tired of my own You know we like your sisters keep it like a movie in Maine ~ G. Haynes
Posts: 38 | Location: City of Roses | Registered: 02 November 2007
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Discussion Community 
But "lengyel, magyar – két jó barát"