LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   The future of the Republican Party (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=193604)

Achilles 11-06-2008 01:46 AM

The future of the Republican Party
 
A great deal of the buzz I'm hearing today seems to revolve around the question, "What's next for the Republican Party?".

Based on the overwhelming response we saw during yesterday's election, it would seem that the modern American conservative movement has been sent a message. Will the centrist try to take the wheel and move the party closer to the center in a bid to regain influence? Or will the far-right redouble their efforts and end up moving even further right?

In what might be one of the most important ramifications of an Obama presidency is the fact that he will most likely appoint 1, if not 2, Supreme Court Justices during his 1st term. If he does so within the next two years, he will most certainly have a cooperative Congress doing the confirmations. If the Democrats either keep their current seats or grow their majority (which I suspect they will, but I'm hardly an expert or a fortune teller) in the 2010 mid-term election, then he might even appoint a 3rd justice with an ever more cooperative Congress.

What will happen to the conservative groups pushing their pro-religion/anti-science agenda (I'm using a broad brush here. I feel that all the specific issues I could list off would comfortably fit under this umbrella)? We've seen the conservative movement go underground only to come back stronger later. Is this something we should be thinking about going forward.

A lot of questions here. Hopefully this will generate some good discussion. Thanks reading and thanks in advance for your responses.

Rogue15 11-06-2008 09:59 AM

this country is going to hell lol

Achilles 11-06-2008 01:08 PM

Listening to this now.

tk102 11-06-2008 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2549764)
Will the centrist try to take the wheel and move the party closer to the center in a bid to regain influence? Or will the far-right redouble their efforts and end up moving even further right?

I would expect a farther lean to the right. It worked in 2000/2004 and centrism didn't pan out too well for McCain. Though a lot could change in two years, I doubt that is enough time to see conservatism gain substantial power. If Obama is able to sustain his popularity through his first term enough for re-election in 2012, I would very much expect another rise in conservatism in 2014, just as it did in 1998 (Clinton's 2nd term) and the way liberalism rose in 2006 (Bush's 2nd term). By then there will almost certainly be enough fodder to build a campaign upon (scandals, narrow passage/defeat of controversial legislation, and questionable executive decisions).

I'm not sure what role Palin will play in the future. I really liked Tina Fey.

Achilles 11-06-2008 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk102 (Post 2549900)
I would expect a farther lean to the right. It worked in 2000/2004 and centrism didn't pan out too well for McCain.

Hmm...

I think I would be inclined to argue that Bush won in 2000 because he "out-centristed" McCain. My impression is that Bush did well because he made a case of "compassionate conservatism", not the hard-right conservatism.

McCain didn't run in 04 and some have argued that he didn't do well in this election because he didn't do enough to cater to the center (I'll admit that I'm simply parroting what I've heard on this last point. Feel free to blow it out of the water.).

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk102 (Post 2549900)
Though a lot could change in two years, I doubt that is enough time to see conservatism gain substantial power.

I think that the previous power-brokers are all gone. The movement would need a new generation of leaders gain momentum. I think you're correct in saying that 2 years isn't enough time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk102 (Post 2549900)
If Obama is able to sustain his popularity through his first term enough for re-election in 2012, I would very much expect another rise in conservatism in 2014, just as it did in 1998 (Clinton's 2nd term) and the way liberalism rose in 2006 (Bush's 2nd term). By then there will almost certainly be enough fodder to build a campaign upon (scandals, narrow passage/defeat of controversial legislation, and questionable executive decisions).

2nd terms are always the most fun, aren't they? ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk102 (Post 2549900)
I'm not sure what role Palin will play in the future. I really liked Tina Fey.

[added by edit]Can Palin resurrect the GOP? Does she want to?[/edit] :)

If there is any merit to the stories that are coming out now (she didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country?!), then I think her time in the limelight will be short-lived indeed.

Quasi-unrelated: It will be interesting to see how McCain spends what might be his last two years in the Senate.

tk102 11-06-2008 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2549987)
Hmm...

I think I would be inclined to argue that Bush won in 2000 because he "out-centristed" McCain. My impression is that Bush did well because he made a case of "compassionate conservatism", not the hard-right conservatism.

I was thinking of the post-primary time period in 2000, rather than the pre-primary one. At that point Bush selected Cheney and galvanized his ties with PNAC.

But even in the 2000 pre-primary campaign against McCain, the New York Times noted:
Quote:

Mr. Bush, as the first votes of the primary season near, has sought to galvanize his party's conservative base. Originally Mr. Bush tried to run from the center as if already in the general election campaign, using his ''compassionate conservatism'' to distinguish himself from the harder-edged conservatism of Congressional Republicans.

But now, with Mr. McCain drawing support from independents and moderates, Mr. Bush has tried to paint himself as the true conservative of the duo. He has charged that the senator's ideas on campaign finance law would ''hurt Republicans and hurt the conservative cause.'' He has put heavy emphasis on his sweeping tax-cut proposal and constantly tries to tie Mr. McCain to Vice President Al Gore, saying that they are the ''two voices'' in the campaign who say his plan is too large.
--(Jan 16, 2000)

Quote:

I think that the previous power-brokers are all gone. The movement would need a new generation of leaders gain momentum. I think you're correct in saying that 2 years isn't enough time.
*Googles the current whereabouts of Bill Kristol*

Quote:

If there is any merit to the stories that are coming out now (she didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country?!), then I think her time in the limelight will be short-lived indeed.
That's my gut feel, but look at the trouble that Senator Stevens is in right now. If he steps aside, I would think her star power would be enough to carry herself back to Washington D.C. And I knew I wasn't the only thinking this.

Achilles 11-06-2008 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk102 (Post 2549998)
But even in the 2000 pre-primary campaign against McCain, the New York Times noted: <snip>

Good read. Thanks for the link.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk102 (Post 2549998)
*Googles the current whereabouts of Bill Kristol*

:lol:

I was thinking more along the lines of Tom Delay. Based on what I've been reading lately, I've been made to realize just how far the "team effort" extended. With many big pieces missing, I'm not sure what to expect as far as timeline for resurgence.

Going back to the first post, what does the Discovery Institute do now? They don't have someone in the White House advocating that we "teach the controversy".

How does the anti-abortion movement proceed with the knowledge that a 6-3 or 7-2 conservative Supreme Court isn't likely to happen?

What are the repercussions of the likelihood that U.S. researchers might be on the brink of getting a lot more funding for embryonic stem cell research? Do we need to start eyeing the newspapers for headlines of research facility bombings (ala abortion clinic bombings, etc)?

Is the culture war over? Are we just getting a breather? Or will it continue/intesify/whatever?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk102 (Post 2549998)
That's my gut feel, but look at the trouble that Senator Stevens is in right now. If he steps aside, I would think her star power would be enough to carry herself back to Washington D.C. And I knew I wasn't the only thinking this.

Oh my. That's an interesting thought indeed.

mimartin 11-06-2008 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2549987)

Quote:

Grover Norquist, a leading conservative and president of Americans for Tax Reform, called Palin "one of five or six people who is a plausible candidate for president in 2012," along with familiar names like Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Well Palin is smarter than one of their only plausible candiates for 2012. I've talked to this man on the phone more than once and I would be surprise if he knew where Austin, Texas was. If Perry is one of their five or six plausible candidates the Republican Party is in more trouble than I suspected.

tk102 11-06-2008 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk102 (Post 2549998)
If he steps aside, I would think her star power would be enough to carry herself back to Washington D.C. And I knew I wasn't the only thinking this.

Heh heh, after reading the last paragraph in that article over again, I guess she wouldn't need star power at all, just her governorship.

Samuel Dravis 11-06-2008 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2550014)
Well Palin is smarter than one of their only plausible candiates for 2012. I've talked to this man on the phone more than once and I would be surprise if he knew where Austin, Texas was. If Perry is one of their five or six plausible candidates the Republican Party is in more trouble than I suspected.

I agree. I can't imagine anyone actually wanting Perry (except, I suppose, a minority of Texans). He carried the last election with less than half of the total votes. The only reason he won was because there were several other contenders that split the opposition. I don't see him being able to swing a candidacy.

Achilles 11-10-2008 05:59 PM

More on this topic here.

tk102 11-10-2008 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2552012)
More on this topic here.

Thanks Achilles. Some of the key points I heard:

George Will: 25% of Obama's voters were under 30 so could this signal a generational imprinting?
Cynthia Tucker: That would likely be the case if the administration shows itself to be competent.
Fareed Zakaria: Traditional stances of the GOP (deregulation, low taxes, low spending) and are more irrevelant today than in years past.
David Brooks: GOP needs to address today's issues (China, Russia, healthcare, energy).
Mike Pence: McCain still got 46% of the popular vote, so don't count the party out yet.

Achilles 11-10-2008 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk102 (Post 2552024)
Cynthia Tucker: That would likely be the case if the administration shows itself to be competent.

I found her use of adjectives interesting. Did Bush lower the bar so far that competence is all that's required or is the bar for Obama set so high that "competence" from him would seem like "exceed expectation" for someone else?
Quote:

Originally Posted by tk102 (Post 2552024)
Mike Pence: McCain still got 46% of the popular vote, so don't count the party out yet.

Another comment that I found interesting. Especially in light of the other comments that alluded to the Republican party being the party for people with outdated ideas who refused to get with the times.

tk102 11-10-2008 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2552039)
I found her use of adjectives interesting. Did Bush lower the bar so far that competence is all that's required or is the bar for Obama set so high that "competence" from him would seem like "exceed expectation" for someone else?

I think more of the latter... by the time rolls around that there's enough hindsight to meaningfully discuss the Obama administration's "competency", it will have its own merits or lack thereof to be judged by. If the youth doesn't get disillusioned, they might very well imprint Democratic.


Quote:

Another comment that I found interesting. Especially in light of the other comments that alluded to the Republican party being the party for people with outdated ideas who refused to get with the times.
I can only think of GOP jabs as a response so I'll just :)

Achilles 11-11-2008 05:05 PM

Another round table discussion from NPR's Talk of the Nation (click Listen Now link at the top of the article).

SkinWalker 01-29-2009 11:10 PM

There's an article at Rebuild the Party.com that outlines much of their technical strategy and some of there tactical strategy as well.

Technically speaking, they'd like to take more advantage of the internet and novel media in general -something the Obama campaign demonstrated as extremely effective in fundraising and disseminating information.

Tactically, however, they'll need to modify their message. On this site its mentioned:
Quote:

Obama's victory could be a blessing in disguise for conservatives. Why? Because Obama's winning strategy was built on the back of an inherently conservative idea: that we the people, acting together outside of government, can accomplish great things. Or, in the words of the overused slogan, "Yes We Can."
-and an admission that:
Quote:

Because of the Internet, "us" becomes a force more powerful than any in politics. The ability to donate or volunteer instantaneously online gives the millions of "us" more leverage than even the most connected group of insiders.
But their one failing may actually be the continued appeal to their alleged "base" of evangelical and fundamental but largely ignorant Christians who have a large population and a low education. This population is slowly dying off as older generations make way for younger, more tolerant and less fundamental ones and as education gains a larger foothold among Christian populations, diluting the fundamental mentality with a more eclectic one.

GarfieldJL 02-02-2009 06:47 PM

Excuse me?

I'm a Republican and I consider those comments to be out of line, the Republican's base has always been Military, Religious Conservatives, etc.

People had better hope the Republicans manage to remain a major party or this country is in real trouble, cause we'd have a One-Party system.


The reasons why Republicans lost this last election can be traced to multiple factors, however to sum up the situation I find the commentary that Republicans are not tolerant of others to be really insulting, that's the stereotype the media tries to paint Republicans as, that's not what Republicans are, just look at who heads the Republican Party.

Vikinor 02-02-2009 07:47 PM

Well, as much as many people don't like to believe, stereotypes are often based on some form of truth. Not always, but often, whether it is or is not stretched or blown out of proportion.

And from what you say about the Republican base being military and religious conservatives, may possibly be one of the key factors to why they aren't a majority in office at this time.

Military. Well, I know this isn't a great example and is pretty biased. Iraq.

Religious. Somewhat irrelevant because of the separation of Church and State.

Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything. And I do apologize if this came across that way.

GarfieldJL 02-02-2009 07:51 PM

Well, here is the thing, was it the Republicans that lost or the unethical behavior of the Media that caused the Democrats to be elected.

Seriously, if it were the results of just people going to the left, it wouldn't explain why the constitutional amendment in California passed.


As far as Iraq is concerned, did anyone else notice the fact they voted here recently without any major incident of violence.

Furthermore, I don't want to get into the race/gender media coverage in this thread.

Kurgan 02-11-2009 03:16 PM

Whenever people start talking about an "anti-religious" movement here, I ask them to reconsider how the black vote got Obama elected, and that constituency is largely religious, and conservative on some social issues (Ie: anti-gay marriage).

So let's try and avoid too much black and white (pardon the pun) portrayals here.

Frankly I think the Republican party has lost its way (yes I was a Ron Paul supporter, and it was amazing to see how different he was from the other candidates running). The big two have just gotten fatter and more centrist, cynical politically sly with each passing year. That's reason enough to remain an independent!

Tommycat 02-11-2009 10:40 PM

Ya get 90% of a demographic to vote for someone, and all of the sudden that means the Republicans are falling apart.

McCain never energized the party, let alone the nation. I swear some times it seemed like he was campaigning for Obama.

And Vikinor, I would be VERY careful with your generalizations about stereotypes. Especially with us now having an African American president. There are more than a few stereotypes out there. And quite a few are unfounded.

Vikinor 02-11-2009 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2588002)
And Vikinor, I would be VERY careful with your generalizations about stereotypes. Especially with us now having an African American president. There are more than a few stereotypes out there. And quite a few are unfounded.

Not quite sure I understand what you're getting at(or what you interpreted from my post), but I'll keep that in mind.
:confused:

Tommycat 02-12-2009 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikinor (Post 2588017)
Not quite sure I understand what you're getting at(or what you interpreted from my post), but I'll keep that in mind.
:confused:

Justifying the stereotype of Republicans could easily be used to justify the stereotypes of African Americans. I would rather not go into explaining those. Basically, I'm saying watch your stereotypes, and the justifications you use.

Darth Avlectus 02-15-2009 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2588048)
Justifying the stereotype of Republicans could easily be used to justify the stereotypes of African Americans. I would rather not go into explaining those. Basically, I'm saying watch your stereotypes, and the justifications you use.

Or conservatives for that matter, friends.

@general idea
The whole "conservatives are defined by the oldest, dumbest, most racist white guy who loves his guns" stereotype is getting rather old. If it is true, then how do you explain Ted Hayes?

I'd have more but I'd rather not rant on and on right now. Just thought I'd toss out an example (a popular one at that) of a stereotype.

EnderWiggin 02-15-2009 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2589366)
*brevity*


True, but on the other hand, most members of the group are both in favor of the War and Religious, which may not be the public's wish for a leader right now.

While this doesn't include all Republicans, I can see what Viknor was trying to say, even if I don't necessarily agree.

_EW_

Darth Avlectus 02-18-2009 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin (Post 2589467)
True, but on the other hand, most members of the group are both in favor of the War and Religious, which may not be the public's wish for a leader right now.

While this doesn't include all Republicans, I can see what Viknor was trying to say, even if I don't necessarily agree.

_EW_

True enough. I guess I'm just ragging on as an independent in a rightbound niche. (shrugs)

BTW, What was so brief about what I said? :confused:

Tommycat 02-19-2009 11:38 PM

Sorry, but with Skinwalker saying the Republicans(and conservatives in general) were intolerant(even though Bush had more minorities in higher positions than Clinton), ignorant, and uneducated, then Vikinor following that with saying those stereotypes have some basis in truth... That is insulting. It would be like if Garfield called Democrats pot smoking layabout welfare babies. Then I followed it up with claiming there was some truth to it. It's insulting.

At any rate, to the topic: There's very little that makes me think the Republican party is going away. Heck if the Democrat party didn't go away after the crushing defeat in '84 why would the Republican party go away this time. I think more than anything the people wanted something different. If you paid attention to the speeches you would have noticed that "Change" was the buzz word. Eventually that "New President Smell" will wear off, and people will start looking at him and his party more critically. For now it's mostly the conservatives looking at him closely. When it gets on two years, if we aren't doing better, the general public is gonna look real closely at our government. If we're worse off(which is entirely possible), whether right or not, this administration is going to get the blame. That will give the Republican party the ammunition it needs to gain power.

The problem comes in the form of the major news outlets. More of them tend to be far less critical of Democrats than they are Republicans. So taking that into account, it's going to be hard to sway public opinion. Oh well, we'll see how the future plays out

SkinWalker 02-21-2009 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2591703)
Sorry, but with Skinwalker saying the Republicans(and conservatives in general) were intolerant(even though Bush had more minorities in higher positions than Clinton), ignorant, and uneducated, then Vikinor following that with saying those stereotypes have some basis in truth... That is insulting. It would be like if Garfield called Democrats pot smoking layabout welfare babies. Then I followed it up with claiming there was some truth to it. It's insulting.

You're analysis may be formed from preconceived bias and lack of understanding. Perhaps you're a conservative and consider yourself republican (I honestly don't care and actually detest politics in general), but my statements, while not supported at the time with references, were generally accurate.

Yours, however, suffer some fallacious reasoning.

First, you assume that the mere act of a single leader within the republican party or conservative movement to position minorities within government is both necessary and sufficient to absolve the entire party of its overall intolerant appearance. It is not.

Facts show that more resistance to human rights, gay rights, women's rights, and the rights of people of color within government is driven by republican and conservative efforts (Bandhauer & Perales 2004; Kromm & Sturgis 2008; Republicans Against 8 2008; and Ross & Esposito 2005).

Facts also show (Massengill, 2008) that "Even in light of the increased educational opportunities available to Americans born since 1940, being raised conservative Protestant still exerts a negative effect on educational attainment... conservative Protestants born since 1960 are no less likely to finish high school, but display consistently lower odds of bachelor's degree attainment when compared to mainliners."

Should you find a desire to attempt a riposte by deriding Democrats, please feel free to knock yourself out. I have my fair share of criticism for them as well. I'll reserve this criticism should someone deluded by liberal ideology wish to bring it up.

As I said, I detest politics. Mostly because its an institution that is necessary but deplorable in its ideological nonsense which ends up polarizing human societies in order to accomplish progress.

References:

Bandhauer, C. A. and Perales, M. (2004-08-14) "Guest Workers or Invaders? The Conservative Division Over U.S. Immigration Policy: The Reinforcement of National Borders and the Racialization of Latino Migrants" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Hilton San Francisco & Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, CA

Kromm, Chris and Sue Sturgis (2008). Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement: a Global Human Rights Perspective on a National Disaster. Institute for Southern Studies

Massengill, Rebekah Peeples (2008). Educational attainment and cohort change among conservative protestants, 1972-2004. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(4), 545-562.

Republicans Against 8 (2008). http://www.republicansagainst8.com/about/

Ross, Brian and Richard Esposito (Nov. 18, 2005). CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described. ABC World News

Tommycat 02-21-2009 06:47 AM

Oh, prop 8... I forgot, Is California mostly Republican? Then why on earth would it be voted down... Could it have more to do with the fact that we as a nation in general are intolerant. To pin it on the Republicans is a bit silly. You are also painting the whole of the party by the actions of a few, so why can't we use the actions of a few to paint us in a better light. I mean wasn't Robert Byrd a member of the KKK? Can't get much more intolerant than the KKK.

You also note that there is division within the party over immigration. So, throw that one out.

Oh Come on... your Katrina source is obviously biassed. Find me anything negative they say about the Democrats at Facing South(which both of them are associated with).

And sorry, but people who are intolerant of religious people talking about religious intolerance... Sorry, doesn't fly. All you'd have to do is read more of Dr. Massengill's work to see where she stands with regards to religion.

And as far as I know the Republicans don't have a monopoly on the religious.

It was Republicans that freed slaves
It was Democrats that fillibustered to prevent making lynching a federal crime.
It was a Democrat that put a Klansman into the supreme court.
First Black Secretary of State?
First Black Woman Secretary of State?

Republicans tend to get called racist and intolerant, and it just is not fair.

Oh right Republicans are intolerant of the GLBT community http://online.logcabin.org/

So what about the torture.. the party leader for the last election was McCain. He made it VERY clear he opposed torture.

GarfieldJL 02-21-2009 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker (Post 2592121)
You're analysis may be formed from preconceived bias and lack of understanding. Perhaps you're a conservative and consider yourself republican (I honestly don't care and actually detest politics in general), but my statements, while not supported at the time with references, were generally accurate.

No, I think Tommycat was completely accurate and in some cases understating the fact.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
First, you assume that the mere act of a single leader within the republican party or conservative movement to position minorities within government is both necessary and sufficient to absolve the entire party of its overall intolerant appearance. It is not.

The current leader of the Republican Party is African American, your comments that Republicans are racist are out of line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Facts show that more resistance to human rights, gay rights, women's rights, and the rights of people of color within government is driven by republican and conservative efforts (Bandhauer & Perales 2004; Kromm & Sturgis 2008; Republicans Against 8 2008; and Ross & Esposito 2005).

California is ran predominately by Democrats not Republicans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Facts also show (Massengill, 2008) that "Even in light of the increased educational opportunities available to Americans born since 1940, being raised conservative Protestant still exerts a negative effect on educational attainment... conservative Protestants born since 1960 are no less likely to finish high school, but display consistently lower odds of bachelor's degree attainment when compared to mainliners."

And what evidence do you have that this individual knows what he is talking about. Some of the people from 1960s that predominately run Academia curriculem today were the Marxists and terrorists that did their best to kill people. See William Ayers as an example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Bandhauer, C. A. and Perales, M. (2004-08-14) "Guest Workers or Invaders? The Conservative Division Over U.S. Immigration Policy: The Reinforcement of National Borders and the Racialization of Latino Migrants" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Hilton San Francisco & Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, CA

If that is an example of your sources your case is in serious trouble, it is no secret that the hard left controls academia and no coincidence that it happens to be Pelosi's district.

Congratulations you just fell for the most typical left wing ploy, when someone disagrees with them, they just call them racists or sexist. We saw it all 2008 election, we even see it just last week.

ET Warrior 02-21-2009 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2592427)
And what evidence do you have that this individual knows what he is talking about.

So, as usual, if it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions of how the world works it's probably an outright fabrication?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2592427)
If that is an example of your sources your case is in serious trouble, it is no secret that the hard left controls academia

lolwut? So any academic source is null and void because those crazy lefties have them in their pockets? Are you for serious here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2592427)
Congratulations you just fell for the most typical left wing ploy, when someone disagrees with them, they just call them racists or sexist. We saw it all 2008 election, we even see it just last week.

And you have fallen for the most typical GarfieldJL ploy, when someone disagrees with you just accuse them of being part of the radical left and then insinuate that they want to perform romantic acts on our current president.

True_Avery 02-21-2009 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
California is ran predominately by Democrats not Republicans.

We may vote Democrat in the presidential elections, but we have a Republican in power and on inner state matters we more often vote Republican.

Why?

Because we are a coasted state. Meaning, a good part of the military and navy exist out here. California is not so cut and dry Democrat as the rest of the country likes to believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
And what evidence do you have that this individual knows what he is talking about. Some of the people from 1960s that predominately run Academia curriculem today were the Marxists and terrorists that did their best to kill people. See William Ayers as an example.

So, any academy in the 60s is null and void because they were "terrorists" and/or "marxists"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
If that is an example of your sources your case is in serious trouble, it is no secret that the hard left controls academia

Are you serious? Everything is null and void because it is in the "lefts" pocket?

Great job closing your eyes and ears and yelling loudly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
And you have fallen for the most typical GarfieldJL ploy, when someone disagrees with you just accuse them of being part of the radical left and then insinuate that they want to perform romantic acts on our current president.

Quoted for Truth.

GarfieldJL 02-21-2009 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery (Post 2592603)
We may vote Democrat in the presidential elections, but we have a Republican in power and on inner state matters we more often vote Republican.

Why?

Because we are a coasted state. Meaning, a good part of the military and navy exist out here. California is not so cut and dry Democrat as the rest of the country likes to believe.

Wasn't your prior Governor a Democrat, also if you look at the voting Demographics you'd find many of the same people that voted for Obama voted to ban Gay Marriage.


Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery
So, any academy in the 60s is null and void because they were "terrorists" and/or "marxists"?

They are when they are teaching people their leftist ideaology have you read some of the books they use or even seen them. I have thank you kindly, so I think I know a lot more on the subject than you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery
Are you serious? Everything is null and void because it is in the "lefts" pocket?

It is when they start accusing people of being racist, sexists, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery
Great job closing your eyes and ears and yelling loudly.

Whatever...

True_Avery 02-22-2009 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2592607)
Wasn't your prior Governor a Democrat, also if you look at the voting Demographics you'd find many of the same people that voted for Obama voted to ban Gay Marriage.

Which would fall into the religious category of people. Right or left has little to do with that. I was simply clarifying that this state is hardly as "leftist" and "democratic" as the rest of the country would like to believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
It is when they start accusing people of being racist, sexists, etc.

Since when has all of academia accused you of being a racist sexist? I believe it was Skinwalker who said such, not the entire academic community.

SkinWalker 02-22-2009 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery (Post 2593037)
Since when has all of academia accused you of being a racist sexist? I believe it was Skinwalker who said such, not the entire academic community.

What I actually said (initially) was:
Quote:

But their one failing may actually be the continued appeal to their alleged "base" of evangelical and fundamental but largely ignorant Christians who have a large population and a low education. This population is slowly dying off as older generations make way for younger, more tolerant and less fundamental ones and as education gains a larger foothold among Christian populations, diluting the fundamental mentality with a more eclectic one.
I thought I was actually complimenting or at least defending the republican party by pointing out that it is actually diverse and maturing past its stereotyped role of the past and developing into a more eclectic and progressive party. The core values of the republican party are beginning to shift, though there does seem to be an effort by some to continue to appeal to their alleged "base," which are conservative but fundamental christians who are demonstrably the more ignorant and undereducated of our society.

Republicans are fast catching up in education.

The data I posted for tommy was intended to show that there are some general feelings among non-republicans (and even some moderate republicans) that the things he was claiming not to exist actually does appear to exist.

Rather than take each point of data and refute it logically, he chose to simply cast all the data aside as if they are magically refuted by his mere disagreement or an accusation of "bias." This type of fallacious reasoning is also a generalization that can be cast toward the republican party and, it is hoped, will become extinct among them as educations improve.

GarfieldJL 02-22-2009 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery (Post 2593037)
Which would fall into the religious category of people. Right or left has little to do with that. I was simply clarifying that this state is hardly as "leftist" and "democratic" as the rest of the country would like to believe.

Yeah and I am Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. There may be some places in California that are conservative, but most of California's population centers are controled by the loony left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery
Since when has all of academia accused you of being a racist sexist? I believe it was Skinwalker who said such, not the entire academic community.

They've accused Republicans in general, including Senator John McCain as well as other things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I thought I was actually complimenting or at least defending the republican party by pointing out that it is actually diverse and maturing past its stereotyped role of the past and developing into a more eclectic and progressive party. The core values of the republican party are beginning to shift, though there does seem to be an effort by some to continue to appeal to their alleged "base," which are conservative but fundamental christians who are demonstrably the more ignorant and undereducated of our society.

You're digging yourself a deeper hole, you're insulting Conservatives even more, seriously you take every opportunity to bash people of faith Christians in particular and it's serious flamebait.

To be blunt there are uneducated Atheists too but you don't see me go off bashing Atheists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Republicans are fast catching up in education.

Excuse me? To be blunt there are a lot of Republicans out there that are educated, the people that are barely literate and living on welfare tend to be Democrat voters.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
The data I posted for tommy was intended to show that there are some general feelings among non-republicans (and even some moderate republicans) that the things he was claiming not to exist actually does appear to exist.

And we're telling you that the sources you used have their own agenda and are intellectually dishonest.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Rather than take each point of data and refute it logically, he chose to simply cast all the data aside as if they are magically refuted by his mere disagreement or an accusation of "bias." This type of fallacious reasoning is also a generalization that can be cast toward the republican party and, it is hoped, will become extinct among them as educations improve

Stop right there, you used sources that are known left wing places, including one that is trying to criminally investigate members of the college GOP at one of the Universities because they counterprotested against the Pro-Hamas protest. They are being investigated for a hate crime, excuse me that school has no objectivity.

Det. Bart Lasiter 02-22-2009 09:34 PM

heh your logic is so pathetic the only thing you can do is make baseless accusations against his sources

jrrtoken 02-22-2009 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2593232)
Yeah and I am Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. There may be some places in California that are conservative, but most of California's population centers are controled by the loony left.

Thanks for stereotyping. Up for more liberal name-calling?
Quote:

They've accused Republicans in general, including Senator John McCain as well as other things.
Source, since I did know that every intellectual likes to bash Republicans in their spare time.
Quote:

To be blunt there are uneducated Atheists too but you don't see me go off bashing Atheists.
Why, you haven't forgotten the cult of atheism, have you?
Quote:

Excuse me? To be blunt there are a lot of Republicans out there that are educated, the people that are barely literate and living on welfare tend to be Democrat voters.
What? So, every poverty-stricken degenerate is automatically a Democrat? Stereotype much?
Quote:

And we're telling you that the sources you used have their own agenda and are intellectually dishonest.
I don't see "we" anywhere...
Quote:

Stop right there, you used sources that are known left wing places, including one that is trying to criminally investigate members of the college GOP at one of the Universities because they counterprotested against the Pro-Hamas protest. They are being investigated for a hate crime, excuse me that school has no objectivity.
You've used obviously biased right-wing sources, and aren't they just as bad as extremely left-wing news sources? Either way, that's sooooo hypocritical.

SkinWalker 02-23-2009 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2593232)
... most of California's population centers are controled by the loony left.

Please. Lets not resort to irrational hyperbole. There are clearly "loonies" in both camps of political ideology. Intellectual discourse is damaged by such characterizations and unfair generalizations. Or at least this is what you've been attempting to argue when it comes to your claims that conservatives are being unfairly generalized.

Quote:

You're digging yourself a deeper hole, you're insulting Conservatives even more, seriously you take every opportunity to bash people of faith Christians in particular and it's serious flamebait.
This is your opinion and one not demonstrated as significant. I see no evidence of a "hole" nor have I made any undo "insult" to conservatives. Most so-called conservatives do a fabulous job insulting themselves, much the same way extreme liberals do. People who are given to political ideology are self-insulting since they subscribe to conclusions to which they seek only that data which are confirming, ignoring contrary data out of hand. This is a clear insult to their intellect and rational processes.

And what you consider "bashing" of people of faith, I consider fair criticism. The more wacky people of faith deserve this as well as ridicule if they attempt to publicly assert their "faith" as fact or something that others should consider as valid reason for subscribing to their warped ideologies. I have no problem if you want to believe in ideas as wacky as the Earth is 10,000 years old or that there was once a global flood and a guy built a boat to float 2 of every living thing for over a month. But the moment you make a public claim that this is a fact, I get to laugh and poke fun at them.

Quote:

To be blunt there are uneducated Atheists too but you don't see me go off bashing Atheists.
Of course their are uneducated atheists. Why wouldn't there be? My daughter was (and to a large degree) is a uneducated atheist. She's seven. There are also non-religious and atheist adults who are limited in education.

But the correlations of education and atheism cannot be ignored. A recent study of empirical data (Nyborg 2008) revealed that believers trail atheists by 5.13 IQ points. Nyborg used six testable syllogisms, the first of which was:
  • Cognitively complex people typically resort to reason, science and data to reduce uncertainty,whereas
  • people lacking this cognitive protection often resort to ancient supernatural beliefs and claims.
  • Ergo: High-IQ people gravitate towards atheism and/or science, and low-IQ people become religious.

A survey of American scientists (Larson and Witham 1998) revealed that 60.7% of scientists who responded to a random questionnaire reported disbelief or doubt in a god. With the focus on the National Academy of Scientists, ostensibly the top scientists in their fields, that figure rises to 93%.

But more to the point about conservatives. Conservatives definitely have their positive qualities. They tend to be happier people than liberals, apparently they less bother by social inequalities (Napier and Jost 2008). They participate more in charitable activities than liberals (Brooks 2008). But Jost et al (2003) confirm in their work the psychological variables which consistently predict political conservatism: death anxiety; system instability; dogmatism; intolerance of ambiguity, low openness to experience, and
uncertainty; need for order, closure, and negative integrative complexity; and fear of threat and loss of self-esteem.

Finally, an article in press with the peer reviewed journal Intelligence (Stankov 2008) finds that "[c]onservatism correlates negatively with measures of cognitive ability and educational achievement at both individual- and country levels of analysis." The data are empirical and the results are significant enough to show the clear correlation. In other words, the smarter someone is, the less likely they are to be conservative.

Of course, this won't always hold true. There are some very smart, intelligent conservative republicans. But they're rare when the numbers are scientifically evaluated.

So, while you could attempt to bash atheists, it wouldn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Quote:

Excuse me? To be blunt there are a lot of Republicans out there that are educated, the people that are barely literate and living on welfare tend to be Democrat voters.
And yet, when you control for income, Democrats slightly lead Republicans in the number of years of education (Fried 2008, Table 22, p. 86). Fried is, however, generally favorable (and fairly so) toward republicans in general noting:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fried
Republicans are more likely to correctly answer questions related to basic political knowledge and, in some cases, scientific knowledge. However, where the scientific knowledge conflicts with religious beliefs, Republicans are less likely to give the answers that most scientists would provide.

Quote:

And we're telling you that the sources you used have their own agenda and are intellectually dishonest.
Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Tommy remarked on Massengill's work in general as "having an agenda" but gave no indication that he was even familiar with her work. Likewise, the other sources were casually and fallaciously dismissed as "having an agenda" without the slightest bit of refutation. Without citing and quoting their premises and conclusions to refute them logically and rationally, you're playing the part of the fool. Indeed, I'd say you're reinforcing the stereotypes that Fried appears to argue against in his book (a fascinating read, by the way)


References

Brooks, A. R. (2008). Gross national happiness: Why happiness matters for
America—and how we can get more of it
. New York: Basic Books.

Fried, Joseph (2008). Democrats and Republicans: Comparing the Voters in Statistics and Anecdotes Algora Publishing.

Jost, J. T., et al (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339−375.

Larson, Edward and Larry Witham (1998). Leading Scientists Still Reject God. Nature, 394 (6691), 313.

Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science, 19, 565−572.

Nyborg, Helmuth (2008). The intelligence-religiosity nexus: a representative study of white adolescent Americans. Intelligence, 37(1), 81-93.

Stankov, Lazar (2008)

GarfieldJL 02-23-2009 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker (Post 2593331)
Please. Lets not resort to irrational hyperbole. There are clearly "loonies" in both camps of political ideology. Intellectual discourse is damaged by such characterizations and unfair generalizations. Or at least this is what you've been attempting to argue when it comes to your claims that conservatives are being unfairly generalized.

No, I'm calling it for what it is or would you care to explain the fact schools are starting to get sued for discrimination against Conservatives.

http://chronicle.com/news/article/58...discrimination

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467626,00.html

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app.../NEWS/90123003

Heck there is even an article in the New York Times which is the mouthpiece for the Democrats
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/na...christian.html

So don't tell me I'm making it up, oh and each of these sources are referring to seperate cases.




Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
This is your opinion and one not demonstrated as significant. I see no evidence of a "hole" nor have I made any undo "insult" to conservatives. Most so-called conservatives do a fabulous job insulting themselves, much the same way extreme liberals do. People who are given to political ideology are self-insulting since they subscribe to conclusions to which they seek only that data which are confirming, ignoring contrary data out of hand. This is a clear insult to their intellect and rational processes.

See my sources above

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
And what you consider "bashing" of people of faith, I consider fair criticism. The more wacky people of faith deserve this as well as ridicule if they attempt to publicly assert their "faith" as fact or something that others should consider as valid reason for subscribing to their warped ideologies. I have no problem if you want to believe in ideas as wacky as the Earth is 10,000 years old or that there was once a global flood and a guy built a boat to float 2 of every living thing for over a month. But the moment you make a public claim that this is a fact, I get to laugh and poke fun at them.

And I consider some of what you have said to be outright flamebait, if I were a muslim and you were bashing the muslim faith you'd be up for a lawsuit about now.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Of course their are uneducated atheists. Why wouldn't there be? My daughter was (and to a large degree) is a uneducated atheist. She's seven. There are also non-religious and atheist adults who are limited in education.

Then why are you trying to paint Christians as just being a bunch of uneducated people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
But the correlations of education and atheism cannot be ignored. A recent study of empirical data (Nyborg 2008) revealed that believers trail atheists by 5.13 IQ points. Nyborg used six testable syllogisms, the first of which was:

And the correlation between educational institutions and discrimination of Conservatives cannot be ignored either. It took me 30 seconds to find 4 seperate lawsuits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
  • Cognitively complex people typically resort to reason, science and data to reduce uncertainty,whereas
  • people lacking this cognitive protection often resort to ancient supernatural beliefs and claims.
  • Ergo: High-IQ people gravitate towards atheism and/or science, and low-IQ people become religious.

And you're wondering why the hell I'm considering what you're saying is flamebait.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
A survey of American scientists (Larson and Witham 1998) revealed that 60.7% of scientists who responded to a random questionnaire reported disbelief or doubt in a god. With the focus on the National Academy of Scientists, ostensibly the top scientists in their fields, that figure rises to 93%.

You do realize that there are quite a few scientists including Stephen Hawkins that believe in God, as Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
But more to the point about conservatives. Conservatives definitely have their positive qualities. They tend to be happier people than liberals, apparently they less bother by social inequalities (Napier and Jost 2008). They participate more in charitable activities than liberals (Brooks 2008). But Jost et al (2003) confirm in their work the psychological variables which consistently predict political conservatism: death anxiety; system instability; dogmatism; intolerance of ambiguity, low openness to experience, and
uncertainty; need for order, closure, and negative integrative complexity; and fear of threat and loss of self-esteem.

Religious Conservatives tend to be happier because they believe in God and believe there is a purpose to their lives, if you go from the aethiest viewpoint, life has no purpose. That's also why Conservatives are more charitible as to the deliberate goading that conservatives don't care about discrimination, that is complete and total garbage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Finally, an article in press with the peer reviewed journal Intelligence (Stankov 2008) finds that "[c]onservatism correlates negatively with measures of cognitive ability and educational achievement at both individual- and country levels of analysis." The data are empirical and the results are significant enough to show the clear correlation. In other words, the smarter someone is, the less likely they are to be conservative.

Again, you are using data that is biased, as demonstrated in the above articles I found.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Of course, this won't always hold true. There are some very smart, intelligent conservative republicans. But they're rare when the numbers are scientifically evaluated.

If this argument were in the reverse I would be in a discrimination lawsuit right now and would have the ACLU would be trying to silence me. Seriously, what you're saying is outrageous.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
So, while you could attempt to bash atheists, it wouldn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Explains why various members of the scientific community and academia are being sued.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
And yet, when you control for income, Democrats slightly lead Republicans in the number of years of education (Fried 2008, Table 22, p. 86). Fried is, however, generally favorable (and fairly so) toward republicans in general noting:

Or maybe your scientific studies have tainted data due to wanton bias. Ever heard selectively sampling to skew results.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Tommy remarked on Massengill's work in general as "having an agenda" but gave no indication that he was even familiar with her work. Likewise, the other sources were casually and fallaciously dismissed as "having an agenda" without the slightest bit of refutation. Without citing and quoting their premises and conclusions to refute them logically and rationally, you're playing the part of the fool. Indeed, I'd say you're reinforcing the stereotypes that Fried appears to argue against in his book (a fascinating read, by the way)

Or maybe Tommy has it right and you have it wrong.
There is a study out there that says you must have something fundamentally wrong in your head to be conservative, does that sound like an unbiased study to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX (Post 2593254)
What? So, every poverty-stricken degenerate is automatically a Democrat? Stereotype much?

Look at election polling data much? I don't particularly care for statistics, but the numbers indicate that people in poverty tend to predominately vote for Democrats. Or is it just due to the free pot and cigarettes?

@SkinWalker

Oh the source that you used that Tommycat protests, well the University of California is subject to a lawsuit for discriminating against Christians.

http://www.christianpost.com/Society...-28/index.html

Unbiased source it is not.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.