What the.....???

[redcloud]

I just don't get it.

Republicans can say what you want about the Dems or even the far left minority.....but when the far right say things such as this it makes me feel like I am from another planet than these people (see article below).

I'm also not so sure why the far right/Christian Taliban politicians have to ALWAYS bring up god and religion. So much for the separation of church and state.

http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls ... 14039.html

[Ian]

Bad enough on its own... but he's a member of the House Science Committee, along with the guy who said that it was practically impossible to become pregnant from being raped.

[redcloud]

Bad enough on its own... but he's a member of the House Science Committee, along with the guy who said that it was practically impossible to become pregnant from being raped.

Yep. Who the fuck are these people and why would educated Republicans want to associate themselves with them? Seems to me that party needs to seriously address this crack pot fringe group as it looks really bad when they get elected but also when the party tries to appease them.

There is also a Science, Space and Technology trust fund set up for Educational Grants. I wonder if they come with the stipulation that one cannot teach evolution?

[Hofstadter]

they get elected

The party doesn't need to address the issue because... they get elected. Our country is too big. Too many stupid fuckers in it who will put morons like this in power. The Republican Party, for the most part at least, has always seemed to me to be a party that is based off of people voting irrationally against their own self interest (i.e. people who would benefit from Democratic policies but vote Republican - think poor Republicans in the south who vote for trickle-down Republicans, think about poor people who benefit from welfare or who would benefit from some version of a national Health Care program who vote Republican, think old people who cash their social security checks but vote Republican etc) - this article you posted is just a much more general example of that. I don't think it is in ANYBODY's interest to have idiot's like this running our government, and yet they still get elected.

[olan]

ignore me please.....

[Hofstadter]

Haha sorry I was pretty busy this weekend. I saw it though... I saw it. Thanks though man, that made my day.

[TheWarmth]

As comical as this is (I saw it a few days ago), it's also frightening beyond belief. 46% of Americans believe in creationism. 15% believe in evolution and the remainder believe in evolution assisted by the hand of god. These figures also astound me. From what I read over the weekend, the majority of Republicans are creationists.

[jadams501]

The Republican Party, for the most part at least, has always seemed to me to be a party that is based off of people voting irrationally against their own self interest (i.e. people who would benefit from Democratic policies but vote Republican - think poor Republicans in the south who vote for trickle-down Republicans, think about poor people who benefit from welfare or who would benefit from some version of a national Health Care program who vote Republican, think old people who cash their social security checks but vote Republican etc

Here's the thing... I was raised liberal by 60s activist people, and I studied public policy at a liberal university with the intention of working for those causes as a career. And I discovered, to my disillusionment, that a lot of the things I had been raised to believe and that I wanted to believe simply don't hold water.

I could go on at length (and have in other threads), but suffice it to say that national government programs tackling big issues are enormously complex and difficult to design sustainably. It's hard to see how sensible and functional programs can be put into place when lobbyists have so much influence and corrupt politicians shape legislation while chasing votes and campaign contributions.

Beyond the mechanics of passing laws, there's a bigger problem with our discourse. I'm in journalism, and have consistently been disappointed in journalists' and policy experts' lack of engagement with actual facts and policy details in favor of wishful thinking and platitudes. And, many educated people read the news and are outraged to see anything other than the world they want to live in, nevermind the one that exists. The public is simply not that interested in paying enough attention to the minute and often frustrating details of government to exercise much accountability, and many of the experts are too busy feathering their nests to face problems with intellectual seriousness.

So much of what Democrats propose is unsustainable and flatly unrealistic, often making problems even worse. That isn't to say that I'm fully on board with Republicans but the system needs a counterweight. In my view it is not in people's self-interest to vote for policies that may benefit them in the short term but bankrupt the system over the long run, so I respectfully reject the argument that anyone not voting the straight democratic ticket is voting "against their own self interest."

[Hofstadter]

In my view it is not in people's self-interest to vote for policies that may benefit them in the short term but bankrupt the system over the long run, so I respectfully reject the argument that anyone not voting the straight democratic ticket is voting "against their own self interest."

That is very rational... the argument here is that you should think about the long view instead of the short view. I just think that a lot of the 'wealthy Republicans' are thinking about the short view for themselves not the underlying possible long view for the system (and thus eventually themselves) - they use potentially rational and good ideas (like what you wrote above) and exploit those for their own gain - i.e. they take the idea to far to the other side of the spectrum - and then also they use the less educated, less wealthy portion of the party's irrationality and/or incredibly (in my opinion) immoral social positions (stemming a lot from religion) to put them into power (to me, the fact that in 2012, we even have "gay rights" or abortion as an issue is mind boggling and makes me not want to live in this country - I get it if people are fighting over health care ideas, or tax theory, or foreign policy... but seriously the idea that two people can't get married or a woman can't have control of her body is fucking lunacy to me - especially because people who think that way derive their thinking almost entirely from religion and want to impose that upon others - also, I think this is fair to say that those are policies generally associated with the Republican party - I think the party's credibility is greatly hampered by shit like that). This paragraph maybe dramatizes the party a little bit and sounds more conspiratorial than I intended it to be, but that's just one possible brief, off the cuff interpretation of the party dynamics.

One other thing - I actually walked in on the tail end of an "interdisciplinary studies" class called "Business and Life" - remember, this is a high school so that's why that class might not sound like the most intense/rigorous academic thing, but as I was walking in and the teacher was walking out, he said something that I thought was interesting - "It's a fact that rich people can live more cheaply than poor people, and poor people must live more expensively than rich people - it may not be fair, but it's a fact" - I think what they had probably been talking about was the idea that if you are poorer, you have to try to take the rich view when you can - i.e. you have to try to weigh the immediate cost vs. the long term benefit - the problem is that sometimes, you can't afford to take that long view because of your immediate circumstances - you have to go for immediate gain. Whatever, my point is that if you take his comment a little bit out of context, you can sort of frame the different fundamental beliefs of maybe not Rep. vs. Dem. but at least more conservative/capitalist-ish values vs. more "socialist" values - i.e. where do you think government should fall into that quote - should it be the government's duty to help the poor person out more or should it just be the government's duty to give that poor person the "opportunity" to even things out on there. Just some thoughts.

The public is simply not that interested in paying enough attention to the minute and often frustrating details of government to exercise much accountability, and many of the experts are too busy feathering their nests to face problems with intellectual seriousness.

I think this sort of like what I started out my first post with... too many dumb fuckers in this country. We really should have an oligarchy or whatever so that smart people are in power/a dictatorship or something that way at least something gets done Philosopher kings dawg... philosopher kings... REINSTATE POLL TESTING YO. Just kidding obviously not, people deserve to have their "voice heard".... it just sucks that they are so dumb. It really does seem like this country is headed towards the country seen in Idiocracy.

My theory is that the entire west coast, all the states bordering canada, and the east coast down to like Virginia should secede - think about it, we'd have two countries WHERE EVERYBODY AGREED! We (Horseshoeland) would lose like Colorado and Austin, TX, but that's about it in terms of what I care about. Also, we'd have like zero food, but that's what trade is for I guess. (THIS IS A JOKE BY THE WAY)

[Hofstadter]

#BIDEN2012

Wow. Great stuff, won't go on about it, just wanted to post another WTF? video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... E87gciwebw

A woman in the crowd outside the VP debate today calls Obama a communist... and then precedes to show that she has no idea what that means (or actually what the word "American" means). Unbelievable.

[redcloud]

I thought the Vice Pres debate was very good. Much better, in fact, than the first Presidential debate. A lot of the credit should go to the EXCELLENT questions asked by Martha Raddatz. They were full of substance, extremely engaging, very topical and provided stimulating topic points for much heated discussion and dialogue between Biden and Ryan. It certainly highlighted some major differences between the two parties.

Now on to Presidential debate #2 on Tuesday.

[Hofstadter]

Wholeheartedly agree... Miss Martha blew Jim outta the water.

Just wanted to post this quote

I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith.

Separation of church and state is something that I hold to be probably the most basic tenet of rational government. To me, supporting a candidate who cannot separate their personal religious values from their political doctrine is sheer lunacy. Today, Ryan seemed to say he could not do that. Biden seemed to say he could do that (and he seemed to do so brilliantly/in line with JFK’s style regarding separation of church and state).

[jadams501]

I don't know about that VP debate. I don't think either of them came off particularly well but Biden laid it on a little too thick, I think. There's folksy and then there's pandering, and I'm not sure he stayed on the right side of that line.

A lot of the credit should go to the EXCELLENT questions asked by Martha Raddatz.

She was OK. I think that her attendance at Obama's wedding and former marriage to one of his top officials highlight the incestuous revolving door between high level social circles of politics and journalism. 4 years ago the VP moderator Gwen Ifill had just signed a book contract for a project celebrating how gloriously historic Obama was, which was even more blatantly a conflict of interest than Raddatz. Overall her approach seemed fair enough to me but I wonder if some of that was the scrutiny she had received for her personal ties to the administration.

Separation of church and state is something that I hold to be probably the most basic tenet of rational government. To me, supporting a candidate who cannot separate their personal religious values from their political doctrine is sheer lunacy. Today, Ryan seemed to say he could not do that. Biden seemed to say he could do that (and he seemed to do so brilliantly/in line with JFK’s style regarding separation of church and state).

It's a tricky issue, though. I think our contemporary upscale discourse tends to treat religion or the neutered catch-all "spirituality" as a nice little accessory that has its moments but that you put back in the closet when you're done, like one of George Harrison's sitar tracks you might skip when you're not in the mood. But to many many people religion is the core principle that animates and explains reality, just as political ideology works for a lot of other people. We need religious tolerance, and imho some of that is respecting the prisms through which people view the world whether we can relate or not. Plenty of political agendas require leaps of faith no less preposterous than parting seas or rising from the dead... I don't think the deeply held opinions of a Christopher Hitchens or any other secularist tend to be more rational than plenty of religious folk.

[redcloud]

I don't know about that VP debate. I don't think either of them came off particularly well but Biden laid it on a little too thick, I think. There's folksy and then there's pandering, and I'm not sure he stayed on the right side of that line.

You're a Republican....of course you are going to say that. Biden, if anything, was a bit aggressive at times and, perhaps, dismissive/condescending of Ryan. On the whole, I thought Biden came across very experienced and a good debater. There were no gaffes, he said it like it is. Ryan is new to me. I don't know enough about the guy. He wasn't bad like, say, Dan Quayle. But, I wouldn't say he shined, either.

A lot of the credit should go to the EXCELLENT questions asked by Martha Raddatz.

She was OK. I think that her attendance at Obama's wedding and former marriage to one of his top officials highlight the incestuous revolving door between high level social circles of politics and journalism.

Her questions were intelligent and they were good topic points to really highlight key issues in this election. They also pinpointed the differences between the two parties. No matter who Raddatz's personal friends are I do not think she showed bias towards the Dems during the debate. But, because she asked difficult, probing questions that may have challenged Ryan, the Republicans have since cried foul about attendees at her wedding.

Separation of church and state is something that I hold to be probably the most basic tenet of rational government. To me, supporting a candidate who cannot separate their personal religious values from their political doctrine is sheer lunacy. Today, Ryan seemed to say he could not do that. Biden seemed to say he could do that (and he seemed to do so brilliantly/in line with JFK’s style regarding separation of church and state).

But to many many people religion is the core principle that animates and explains reality, just as political ideology works for a lot of other people. We need religious tolerance, and imho some of that is respecting the prisms through which people view the world whether we can relate or not. Plenty of political agendas require leaps of faith no less preposterous than parting seas or rising from the dead... I don't think the deeply held opinions of a Christopher Hitchens or any other secularist tend to be more rational than plenty of religious folk.

I agree with Hofstadter. Religion should have no part in US Politics. Freedom of religion is one of the basic rights set out in the First amendments. The separation of church and state is a vital building block for this country and I do not want Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or anybody for that matter using religion as a basis for their politics. I agree that we need religious tolerance and this is why a President or Vice President (or Supreme Court judge) making decisions based on their religious belief does not promote tolerance. If one was to argue against the concept of separation of church and state for the promotion of religious tolerance you could argue that we need to teach Religious Education in US schools. The more that kids understand various religions the more tolerant they may be to different faiths.

[jadams501]

You're a Republican....of course you are going to say that..

I've voted for Dems, Repubs, and 3rd Party candidates. I'm not here to spout a party line. Do you say things only because you align Democratic, or because you are trying to tell it like you see it? I'm sure it's the latter, but there is often an assumption that anyone who is "progressive" is inherently speaking for the public interest, and that others are clearly not honest brokers. That's not really fair and it limits the range of ideas.

As I mentioned I don't think either did hugely well in the debate, but it seemed to me that Ryan was trying to stake a claim on the center while Biden seemed more focused on the Democratic base that was so dispirited by the previous debate. My feeling is that Biden might have pleased his reliable voters but I'm not sure if he reached those who might be wavering by being a little too theatrical, whereas Ryan had to beat a low bar of not being the neanderthal his opponents have portrayed.

because she asked difficult, probing questions that may have challenged Ryan, the Republicans have since cried foul about attendees at her wedding.

The wedding issue was brought up before the debate. Regardless, I think the more scrutiny there is to the close social and economic ties between questionable politicians and the people we trust to accurately report on them, the better. For instance, the current White House press secretary, Jay Carney, was a prominent journalist for a huge newsweekly magazine for years, frequently editorializing as an ostensibly non-partisan observer. Now he's the main voice of the administration, largely because Obama does so few press conferences, and he's again and again misled the public on huge issues like Libya, employment, etc. The revolving door and shared social interests of politicians and journalists, academics, etc. is worth thinking about.

The separation of church and state is a vital building block for this country and I do not want Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or anybody for that matter using religion as a basis for their politics

Plenty of liberals and Democrats, from Martin Luther King to Jimmy Carter to Jeremiah Wright to Barack Obama, have used religious rhetoric and justification to try to drum up support for their political agendas. And I think it's legitimate to, for instance, interpret the "Golden Rule" as a mandate for universal healthcare. But it's also legitimate for others to come to other conclusions. Religion, however it's been distorted over the years, provides the core moral texts of human civilization. It's natural that it touch other conversations about public life.

[semisynthetic]

I vote for all political parties; but what I observed with Mr. Biden in the VP debate was unfortunate.

Had he been in the party or candidate I supported, I would have been ashamed of that bizarre, OTT, "Caffeine Joe" routine.

If Ryan had acted like HIS ritalin was running low, or the meth was "better" this time, I would NOT have been impressed, and
wondered just WHY he was acting not only strangely, but in a manner beneath the office. Of Assistant Dog Catcher.