Frothy's Weekend Pages PREV 1 2 | |
Eh, he only has a few delegates. Romney is who I think is going to win. Unless Newt can drop out and unite the "Not-Romney" vote, I don't see much of a chance for Santorum. Now, what I find funny is that his website is selling an official Santorum sweater vest for $100 | |
That's NOT the definition of a theocracy. In a theocracy, the state is always subordinate to the church, and the divine being of choice is seen as head of the state. It's not a dichotomy. You could, for example, incorporate the head of a church into the legislative process in a way that does not give it absolute power. There. Not secular, but not a theocracy either. ~Sylv | |
Oh, that is a pleasant surprise. I called him a nut because he is raving about "liberal indoctrination" at colleges. Statements like that pass from just statements that I personally disagree with to out of touch with reality crazy talk. | |
Well that sort of thing is more of an overstatement than crazy talk. Me and most of the country know what Santorum is talking about and US colleges (even here in Texas) have a decidedly liberal slant though calling it "indoctrination" assumes that people are unthinking sponges which isnt the case (I often say Americans are gullible not stupid). I think Bachmann was probably crazy but Santorum probably isnt. Keep in mind that Bachmann is a congresswoman meaning she only had to win most of the vote in a district in Minnesota. Santorum used to be a Pennsylvania Senator which means he had to win a majority of the vote in the whole state. I have a hard time believing he could do that if he were actually crazy (in a real sense). | |
Who the Hell uses the word "Dominion" without thinking of themselves as a bad guy? "Dominion". It sounds evil. Might as well say "the Empire" or "the People's Democratic Republic". But no. He goes with "Dominion". "I have dominion over you". Is that word ever a positive? Ever? | |
You watch too many movies >.> Dominion is just a sphere of influence. A kingdom would be the king's dominion, Colorado is under the dominion of the U.S. | |
Look, I think his guy is a fruitloop, and I'm the first to defend University educations, but he's not totally wrong on this. Not everyone should go to college/university. Many people would be much better off in a trade, and not every university degree leads to wonderful opportunities. | |
Um, learning a post high-school graduate vocation in school, at least in America, is still referred to as 'college'. He's not saying 'everybody needs a theoretical doctorate'. It's true that in a broken system such as ours that going to college can mean you're flipping burgers with a degree and Xty thousand dollars of debt, instead of just flipping burgers. But if we want to compete with a global economy, we need people learning actual trades, and that's still called college here. Even if it's not like 'advanced bullshit theory', and it's more like mechanics/shop vocational class. Also it behooves us as a democratic voting nation to have everybody have a decent secondary education even if the 'math/science/literature' section isn't their primary focus of work. | |
There are better ways to put it. A kingdom is a king's domain, Colorado is a state in the U.S. | |
I don't know, it depends on his original quote I guess. But dominion doesn't seem inherently negative. | |
You go to college to become a brick layer? A tool and die maker? A landscaper? If so, I hadn't realized that, but I seriously doubt he was talking about your average drywall mudder when he referred to college as an elitist thing. That's clearly a reference to the academic world, which of course IS elitist(even though I once again endorse it as the right path for many)
Right, which is why many shouldn't go. | |
Soo.... the people whose job it is to STUDY and KNOW THINGS have a 'liberal slant'. I wonder what they know that you don't? | |
What he is saying about college is not necessarily false at the core. It is true that education results in less faith and a more liberal view point of the world. Where he goes wrong is to view it as some giant liberal conspiracy to brainwash people. It has been proven that in general the more educated are less religious and conservative. This is shown in the academic fields where a large percentage of scientists, even in the USA are not religious and are quite liberal. As Colbert joked, reality has a left wing bias. The entire developed world is to the left of the US and a main reason why is education. | |
Yeah. You'd want people to be able to go a trade college to learn those skills, while also maintaining an education in literature/math/economics/governance that helps you make informed voting decisions.
Nah, that's just the Right's anti-intellectual spin zone that anybody smarter than them is 'elitist' and therefor automatically deserving of scorn and to not be listened to.
Yeah, but that's a problem with the job market in general. People plying for a trade in dry walling and brick laying are out of jobs too. That's a separate problem that needs to get fixed, but refusing people to learn those trades isn't fixing it. After one problem is fixed, the other will need to be fixed too. So there's no real reason or benefit to breaking one system to fix the other, then spending your effort to fix the first back.. etc. | |
The Daily Show had a segment on these things tonight and it cleared some things up with some more footage I didn't see. Santorum clarified that technical schools, vocational training etc do not count as college, he was referring to your typical 4 year academic college. They also showed a clip of Obama however that showed him including these things as part of his ideal of everyone getting a higher level of education. This makes it even worst if you ask me, not only does he paint college as a liberal conspiracy but he flat out lied about what Obama said, although to be fair to him this is not exactly something that is looked down upon in the US political spectrum. They also added to my understanding of his separation of church and state comments. For some reason Santorum claims that to him it does not mean that religion should not dictate government decision making, to him it means that no religious person should have a role in decision making, which is bat-shit insane. Stewart made a crack that summed it up, "how do you hear all faiths are welcome as no faiths are welcome". | |
when i was reading that i was thinking how screwed up it was. so i did a little bit of googling and found out that apprenticeships in america have gone in massive decline and are rare these days. the rare organisations that do it often require you to be 18. in australia its 14, but most wont take on an apprentice until 16. | |
No, Crimson is right and the word itself is neutral. What's essential to understand with Dominionists, though, is that they have a kind of coded doublespeak. That sounds conspiracy-theoresque, but to a point all tight groups have jargon. (More than once I've ended up in conversation with another WoW player in the same room with someone who isn't a gamer, and they look at us, astonished, and ask what the hell language we're speaking.) But there really are a lot of words that sound ordinary to us, but are references to group-specific things to them. I really need to cobble together, some day when I've got a day off, a bunch of links to explanations of some of these things. For now, google "Dogemperor" on Talk2Action and read her stuff. She's a walkaway from a Dominionist cult who has made a practice of analyzing them for the rest of us. | |
The thread, I thought, was about Santorum and his religious and/or anti-intellectual nutbaggery. You chimed in with the apparent concern that Roe v Wade (a federal court decision) could be over turned and that our rights are allegedly diminishing. I pointed out that those anti-abortion laws are illegal by federal precedent (the state can't overturn them), the court wont even touch an anti-protest law (state level) regarding abortion, and our rights have actually been expanding. I also said that those things certainly ought to be a concern on the state level. Where in that do you get "don't worry honey"? The same place you found your strawman while moving the goal posts? Some idiots in state legislature making laws that will be overturned and terrorists threatening doctors does not mean Roe v Wade is in any danger what so ever of being overturned. Pick an argument, chose some goal posts, or I dunno... maybe just continue ranting and not caring that you sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. But if you are actually concerned about people listening then maybe you should be a little more concerned about what you're saying. Fuck, I agree with your goals and you annoy me, how do you think the people on the fence look at you? | |
Why is it necessary for it to be over-turned? And...you are dismissing terrorist attacks as unimportant? They are intended, and have had no little success, in making abortions more difficult to come by. The legal right to perform an abortion does not stop doctors being too afraid to carry them out. Not all, of course, but some. It's all very well to have the right to a thing, but if you can't actually utilise it, it is meaningless. If you ability to utilise it is under threat, arguing that your right to it isn't is splitting hairs. And...anyone who doesn't care about Polarity27's rights probably isn't going to change their mind if she decides to play nice about having her rights eroded. | |
I have not argued against anything you have said. I have, from the start, argued that comments such as those about Roe v Wade being overturned are hyperbole, an over reaction that people who one may wish to sway are likely to not listen to. I have argued that if one is concerned about people paying attention and considering the consequences of certain politician's ideologies that shouting about the sky falling (theocracy, overturning Roe v Wade, ect) isn't going to help. All of the responses have been strawmen and red herrings. If you want to vent then vent. If you want people to listen then think about what you are saying before you open your mouth. | |
tbth i'm just surprised we haven't seen more Sanatorium gags... | |
You can, but i shall retain the right to say that not only is it not old at this point, calling Rih Santorum Frothy is hilarious. | |
Acutally the big thing I get from the first video from Santorum is - "I want to maintain the class structure to ensure that minorities stay poor" That is literally what it sounds like he's saying, he doesn't want to make it easier for poor people to go to college and get better paying jobs, they should just be happy labouring, manufacturing and serving people like him's hamburgers for their whole lives. | |
Oh, I know that one. [santorum]"MY version of Christianity is the One True Religion. By treating these EVIL CULTS as if they were somehow equal to it, you make it NO BETTER THAN AN EVIL CULT." Or something like that. Basically, they're arguing that "Lack of Privilege == ZOMFG PERSECUTION!" | |
Not surprising, that's often been a very popular and successful argument in the past. | |
Yeah, I'm not sure how he can turn being the most privileged religion on earth, from one of the most privileged nations on earth, the most privileged race on earth, the most privileged sexuality/gender/sex on earth.. to being persecuted. But it's this thing where, if they're not on the top tier.. ALONE.. then they're the underdog. To people like him, if Christians aren't alone in charge, it's basically the same as them being slaves. It's ridiculous, and it would be comical if it wasn't an ideal espoused by about 150 million Americans. | |
Okay, let me try again, now that I'm considerably more awake than I was the day I made that post (and I haven't read my FB feed first, which always scares the hell out of me (I'm sorry, seeing women I know being all "Santorum's kinda nutty but at least he's not for Obamacare, because that'll take money out of my wallet, and it's not like Roe v. Wade is getting overturned anyway" kinda make me lose my shit.) You're male, IIRC, right? This is personal to me in a way it never will be for you. Especially with this shit in Virginia, I don't have any emotional distance from any of that. Yes, I should lay out my case more cogently. Let me try. 1. Voters, including female voters, give "Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned" as a reason to not notice what's actually going on with abortion rights in this country. In other words, they have a false sense of security based on the court decision and are ignoring the actual eroding going on at a state and local level. If many of them suddenly need to have an abortion, I believe they would be shocked to find out how difficult that has now become. Voters concerned about this issue need to get beyond their complacency to become aware of and fight these measures at a sub-federal level. 2. Santorum isn't "nutty", his beliefs are part of a coherent movement that is well-organized (beyond, IMO, any left-leaning cause with the possible exception of labor unions) and well-funded, but poorly understood. Their goal actually is for the "right kind" of Christians to control all branches of government, and to govern the country according to their idea of "Christian values", as part of bringing about the Rapture. No, that's not Chicken Little, that's actually their goal, as can be found in any number of exhaustively researched articles and books (I would mention Sharlet's "The Family" and Blumenthal's "Republican Gomorrah" for starters), and from the account of people who were in this movement and left. I have promised, when I have time, to put up a post on this with a bunch of quotes and links, and I will do that-- but it'll take hours, and I don't have hours right now. This group is terrifying, but small. The problem is that they have, as mentioned, a very good voter turnout machine. Also, they began in the '70s and '80s with small, local elections (county boards, school boards, sheriff, etc.), the kind that most voters ignore. (Turnout is consistently much smaller on off-year local elections than during presidential and midterm elections.) They made sure to always have a candidate for every small election they could that had a proper Christian pedigree, and would make sure they turned out for their candidates. I believe the results of this strategy on the Republican Party are fairly obvious in this year's candidate selection. This is a part of the Republican base that can no longer be ignored or dismissed as "annoying kooks" (as someone else on my FB feed recently did), but must be catered to to no small degree. Note the Saddleback Ranch "debate" in 2008, note that this segment of the base is what caused John McCain to dump his favorite pick, Joe Lieberman, as VP choice in 2008 and pick up (at the last minute, and poorly vetted) Sarah Palin. (As discussed exhaustively in the book "Game Change" and several other sources.) Voters should understand who these activists are and what they want. 3. Their chances of achieving all of their aims is probably small, and I do believe that if they made considerable progress on their aims, voters would become aware and act to stop the movement in its tracks. It is, as I've said, small. So no, I don't think we'll see the full theocracy they crave, or if we do, we won't see it for long. The trouble, though, is all that already has been done, on an incremental basis, to extend and bolster Christian hegemony in the United States. Of which the anti-abortion measures in #1 are a part. Other parts include the Office of Community & Faith-Based Initiatives, started by Bush and kept by Obama, which discriminates on the basis of religion which groups get grants, and what they can do with the money. Textbook initiatives in school boards across the country to conform to "values" and delete "objectionable" content, and initiatives to "teach the controversy". Initiatives to allow discrimination on basis of religion by adoption agencies (this is already legal in VA). Initiatives to overturn or prevent states from passing marriage equality. We do not, yet, live in a theocracy. But we do live in a country where religion is an increasing part of public life, and mostly one particular kind of one particular religion, and where secular decisions are being made on the basis of whether they conform to a particular set of religious values. I believe that voters are complacent on these matters, and do not see the increasing religiosity of local, state, and federal American politics (or don't believe it could adversely affect them/their families), and are then surprised when a candidate like Santorum surfaces and begins to poll well. (Or they believe, wrongly, that his comments are merely pandering, things that he doesn't actually believe but thinks will get him votes.) 4. Yes, some or all of the things happening in the states *may* be eventually overturned by federal courts, at some point in the future. But in the meantime, thousands of people will suffer and will have their lives adversely affected. What concerns me is the amount of general voter apathy, and comments I often hear that "it's not really that bad" or "it's not like anything will really change no matter who is elected". I believe these statements to be wrong, and I believe that quite a lot of what's happening on a state/local level is adequate evidence for that-- and that these things are a blueprint for what a President Santorum (or someone like him) would like to do on a federal level. Solution: voters should be more informed, and should vote actively in *every* election. Progressive organizations should work to recruit progressive candidates for state/local elections and all available organization should be bent toward creating a turnout machine equivalent to or greater than that fielded by Dominionist organizations like Focus on the Family. tl;dr version: Ultimate aims like true de facto theocracy and overturning Roe v. Wade may be out of reach for those who dream of those things, but that's no reason to ignore the damaging incremental progress of groups committed to those aims. Voters often believe that, because the end goals are unlikely, nothing will change in their lives/their family/friends' lives regardless of who is elected. That's wrong, wrong, WRONG. | |
It says miles about Mitt Romney's character that this guy is pulling a close second in polls. It's gonna be pretty bleak election this year. -___- | |
Exactly. If you want someone to claim to be persecuted, a good way is to take someone with lots of privilege and suggest they should give some of it up. The whole point of privilege is that it's seen as normal, often "the way things are" but generally at least a little bit "the way things should be". You ask the kid who has grown up having all the toys to give one to a kid that doesn't have any, see what happens. | |
Yeah, I agree, but you still have a situation where I want to uppercut somebody for being childish. | |
Well, thank you for taking the trouble to type that all out. It was not necessary, though I certainly appreciate it. My reaction was rather knee jerk. I am male and no I will not likely ever feel as strongly affected by the topic of abortion as you do (probably the same with religion as I am agnostic and you are pagan/wiccan yes?). I do feel rather strongly about my opinions in general but I tend to be more concerned with the people I agree with than the people I do not. This is maybe because I live in a rather liberal state and do not deal with hardcore conservatives or their shenanigans on a regular basis. I would probably be a lot more pissed off if I lived in Virgina. So my apologies for jumping on your case so hard. And my thanks for your efforts to educate me. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 | |
He'll do that anyway, about anything and everything anyone says about him, and if nobody says anything worth spinning, he'll just make shit up; that's how right-wing American politics appear to work. So, if it's inevitable, we might as well have some fun at his expense :P