Has The Republican Party Lost It's Collective Mind?

[Michaelangelica]

"2016"

The documentary is a harsh conservative critique of what the country would look like four years from now if President Barack Obama is re-elected.

">Read more: http://www.news.com....2#ixzz24xRNItzY

the film has been widely praised by conservative political commentators, as you'd expect

"2016" employs a brisk montage of snappy visuals, re-enactments, talking-head interviews and first-person commentary to render President Obama as a clear and present danger whose socialist governing philosophy has been indelibly colored by radical influences ranging from his African-born father (a rabid anti-colonialist) to the notorious Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The theory was Swiss-cheesed with logic holes. D’Souza found great significance in how Obama “demonizes his predecessor and his opponent,” as if only anti-colonialists did this. D’Souza insisted that Obama using the Gulf oil spill crisis to call BP “British Petroleum” is Anglophobia, revealed!

there is a deep dive into Barack Obama’s known Communist associates, his late father’s avowed socialism, and his mother’s radicalism.

for the bulk of its running time, the pic comes off as a cavalcade of conspiracy theories, psycho-politico conjectures and incendiary labeling."

 

http://www.slate.com...ist_roots_.html

 

http://www.variety.c...w/VE1117947988/

Edited August 30, 2012 by Michaelangelica

[CraigD]

These “legitimate vs. illegitimate rape” arguments remind me of what Chomsky, Lakoff, and other say about the political power of “framing the debate”, and lead me to conclude that, regardless of the consequences to Aiken from this latest brouhaha, his side - “social conservatives” - has gained political power from it.

 

By framing this as an argument over whether abortion should be legal for women who become pregnant from rape, incest, or to prevent the woman’s death, the forgone assumption that it should be illegal for all other pregnancies. Yet, legally in the US, “I wanted to get pregnant, then changed my mind” is as legitimate a justification for abortion, provided the abortion is performed in before the third trimester of the pregnancy. In fact, one is no more legally compelled to explain ones reason for requesting an abortion than for requesting any optional medical or other service. It truly is nobody’s business but the woman in question’s.

 

Pursuant to various state and local regulations, every US abortion providers with which I’m familiar requiring women have a short counseling session before the procedure. The purpose of this session is to assure the woman is not in serious emotional distress, however, or unsure of her decision to have an abortion. They are not used to question the woman about the cause of her pregnancy, or refuse to provide the abortion if she fails to satisfy some “legitimacy” criteria.

 

You are at a disadvantage, as you aren't used to the mental gymnastics required to make a statement such as Aiken's with a straight face.

I suspect Aiken and other social conservatives of having a less mentally gymnastic, more chilling motivation and personal justification for their opposition to abortion.

 

I believe they believe that women should be subservient to men, as dictated by most of scripture and traditions of most of the major religions. Generally, under these rule, “legitimate” rape is only possible of a married woman by a man other than her husband, and is considered a property crime, similar to planting crops on another’s land without his permission. Under these rules, an unmarried woman not living in her father’s household is considered subservient to the will of any man, so cannot be “legitimately” raped.

 

In my experience, most people strongly opposed to abortion also oppose, though less vocally, contraception, and consider sex by unmarried women to be morally repugnant.

 

Although I comfort myself in the belief that such people are in the minority, and becoming less numerous as older people, who tend to be more socially conservative than younger, die, I believe they’re still a grave danger to the liberty of women, and by extension, all humankind, and that no person who does not share their beliefs should vote for, or fail to vote for the opponents of, socially conservative politicians, in the hope that they will not allow their beliefs to direct their policy making. They do, and will continue to to the extent that they are elected or appointed to positions that allow them to do so.

[maddog]

The problem with the US representative democracy is not, in my opinion, the lack of a third party. The problem is that politicians in the United States have succeeded in constructing a political structure through which they can blackmail (through directed taxation and regulation, and directed relief from the same) segments of the economy into supporting their re-election efforts in exchange for favorable treatment versus their competitors. The problem is crony capitalism, pure and simple, and until that is addressed, all other solutions will be temporary. However, there isn't, in my opinion, a single politician in Washington that is capable of turning his back on the machine that got him elected in order to affect change, nor is there any hope of electing one that would.

 

Rarely am I so utterly pessimistic.

An Astute assessment. This goes along with the comment from Michael Douglas of "Wall Street" that "Greed is Good!". If that drive to feed the political machine money to further either sides agenda is what makes it so "crony". Both parties engage in this one way or another and both sides deny they do. They state that they are on the side of the public and work to do so in the public interest. It gets harder each election to pick who can move our country forward. This is why I have stopped looking at the party platforms as they are scripted crap for the masses. What matters is what the candidate stands for (if you can figure that out). This is because you can not depend necessarily on what he/she has said in the past. They are politicians. They lie. So you need to look at the actions that these candidates have done in the past and what they stood for in doing so. It is still a little inaccurate in the all the disinformation and rhetoric. At the moment, it is the best we have to go on. To me politics is a "dirty" word and one can not deny pessimism from thinking about the issues at hand. My sympathies.

 

maddog

[maddog]

By framing this as an argument over whether abortion should be legal for women who become pregnant from rape, incest, or to prevent the woman’s death, the forgone assumption that it should be illegal for all other pregnancies. Yet, legally in the US, “I wanted to get pregnant, then changed my mind” is as legitimate a justification for abortion, provided the abortion is performed in before the third trimester of the pregnancy. In fact, one is no more legally compelled to explain ones reason for requesting an abortion than for requesting any optional medical or other service. It truly is nobody’s business but the woman in question’s.

I have complete allegiance with such justifiable reasons for abortion (as you say before 3rd trimester), such as rape (all forms - if there exist such a distinction??), and when the soon to be mother does not wish to have the baby nor take care of it nor can afford it. The opposition to abortion does not consider each instance, just be against it. What could render "taking the wind out of their sails" would be that science could create the capability of what I have termed as Artificial Incubation. This would be where an Artificial Womb could be created that could take a fetus at some time after conception and grow this fetus outside of a mother's womb. If the mother were to give up rights to the child, it would become a ward of the state to be available for adoption. Abortion would then become an archaic brutal thing that was done in the past. We are now able to do this as far as about 5 months after conception (not in all cases). Some research into this area as to what is given to the baby in the first 3 months of pregnancy is needed. A mixture of nutrients and hormones and possible unknown genetic factors.

 

This begs the question on the alternate. What about those 3rd trimester cases. It may turn out that in some cases it my be prudent to abort in this case also. Though very rare would be in the case of medical necessity of survival of mother or child. The best example I can think of was a mother who lived in the US (Texas) and worked in a Mequiladora factory in Mexico. When she got pregnant and had her baby, it was discovered that this infant did not have a brain (cerebrum or cerebellum). Instead all there was was the brain stem (medulla oblingota). This infant died just two days after birth. Extremist who oppose abortion would have opposed a 3rd term abortion in this case. It was theorized that because she drank unfiltered water from the Rio Grande that was why this unfortunate deformation was caused. Suffice it to say if the baby had lived, she would have been obligated to care for a "brain-dead" baby!

 

I suspect Aiken and other social conservatives of having a less mentally gymnastic, more chilling motivation and personal justification for their opposition to abortion.

 

I believe they believe that women should be subservient to men, as dictated by most of scripture and traditions of most of the major religions. Generally, under these rule, “legitimate” rape is only possible of a married woman by a man other than her husband, and is considered a property crime, similar to planting crops on another’s land without his permission. Under these rules, an unmarried woman not living in her father’s household is considered subservient to the will of any man, so cannot be “legitimately” raped.

 

In my experience, most people strongly opposed to abortion also oppose, though less vocally, contraception, and consider sex by unmarried women to be morally repugnant.

This does seem to be the underlying subtext. It is actually chilling to consider Romney being a "lay-pastor" of the LDS what that would mean for the country should he become president. Would our country become a Theocracy like Iran? Would in public schools student be required to pray, even if they were atheists? I am not sure if any previous US President has been previous to his office any form of clergy. It really hasn't been an issue until JFK ran for President. In the future, if either an Atheist or an Anarchist were to run for President. What would be the hullabaloo in either case then?

 

Although I comfort myself in the belief that such people are in the minority, and becoming less numerous as older people, who tend to be more socially conservative than younger, die, I believe they’re still a grave danger to the liberty of women, and by extension, all humankind, and that no person who does not share their beliefs should vote for, or fail to vote for the opponents of, socially conservative politicians, in the hope that they will not allow their beliefs to direct their policy making. They do, and will continue to to the extent that they are elected or appointed to positions that allow them to do so.

I am not so sure. It does seem like this faction is growing at times and dwindling at others. I do see this race being close. Though I may not agree with everything Obama has done since being President, I give his past 4 years a fair pass and many time better than the previous president.

 

maddog

[Deepwater6]

This BBC article describes the collectives disruption to the homeless in Tampa.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19418900

[Kayra]

Although I comfort myself in the belief that such people are in the minority, and becoming less numerous as older people, who tend to be more socially conservative than younger, die, I believe they’re still a grave danger to the liberty of women, and by extension, all humankind, and that no person who does not share their beliefs should vote for, or fail to vote for the opponents of, socially conservative politicians, in the hope that they will not allow their beliefs to direct their policy making. They do, and will continue to to the extent that they are elected or appointed to positions that allow them to do so.

 

I have always enjoy your insights Craigd, and this response was no different.

In this case though, the scope of the statement is a bit telling. "a grave danger to the liberty of women, and by extension, all humankind" would imply a global issue instead of an issue isolated to specific countries.

 

I am of the opinion that all societies are a result of an evolutionary process. Both from founding themselves on various predecessors (inheritance) and ongoing adaptation from environmental stressors.

 

An often forgotten but critical part of the process is the evolutionary "Dead end". This is where something evolves down a path that, while seemingly good for the evolving entity, in the end proves to not be viable. The Dead end effect is when the resulting evolved entity cannot evolve out of a particular strategy. Usually this results in a less competitive (in comparison to other strategies) entity that eventually goes extinct. In other cases it results in more immediate consequences (cancer causing death of the host for example).

 

From what I see, this is where the US is now. The country has evolved down a path where corporations have become a cancer (while this has been espoused before, I mean it in a more literal sense). The cancer has evolved on it's own within the host environment of the country. It has bypassed almost all limitations set by the host to protect itself, and is now starting to consume it from the inside.

 

What is to follow is, at this point, almost inevitable without measures so drastic that they themselves threaten the entity (think massive chemotherapy). I fear the US is to far gone down this path to recover in any meaningful way.

 

The solution was not "Less government", but "Better Government". This would be where the government would lay a heavy hand on anything within it's society that did not represent what was best for the society as a whole. Granting a corporation that does not have any socially evolved tendencies the legal right to person-hood was not definitely not.

 

I consider myself an optimist, but the conclusions are hard to avoid at this point. As a Canadian, my greatest concern now is the consequence and scope the inevitable fall of the US will have on my home. I suspect it will be profound, and long term.

 

As the eternal optimist, I also believe that something better will evolve from this, and I have a few ideas as to what might work.

[Deepwater6]

More good times at the convention. These guys should have been arrested.

 

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=8784727

[CraigD]

More good times at the convention. These guys should have been arrested.

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=8784727

I’d say are quote from a Rage Against the Machine song is in order here:

Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses

Political convention delegates clearly are some of “those who work forces” to whom RAtM were referring.

[Buffy]

Indubitably, the best headline from the convention:

 

(h/t Crooks and Liars)

 

Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math, that doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the Universe, :phones:

Buffy

[C1ay]

Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math, that doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the Universe,...

That depends. Thus far it looks like I'll be writing my own name on the ballot again since we still don't have any Presidential material in the race from any of the parties so far.

[Moontanman]

I'm probably going to vote a straight ticket this year for the first time ever, the Republicans seem to be at the heart of a lie storm of monumental proportions... I have looked into so many republicans looking for some reason to justify voting for them and the ones who are not liars are despicable and the ones who tell the truth are terminally stupid. Locally they act like they don't have two brain cells to rub together and on the State Government level they have let fundamentalist theists influence them into voting for laws that make them look like zombie NAZIs and nationally they are so badly insulting to my basic sense of right and wrong they remind me of Ferengi.

[Moontanman]

Indubitably, the best headline from the convention:

 

(h/t Crooks and Liars)

 

Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math, that doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the Universe, :phones:

Buffy

 

 

Awesome find....