Thursday, November 13, 2008

"Utopian post-partisan alliegiance to "The One."?"

Is there anyone out there who knows, and can explain, what [this guy at his blog] is talking about?

He says,
"As readers know, many of the Obama cult shock troops are out surfing the web as PC commissars dictating demands of utopian post-partisan alliegiance to "The One."
By "many Obama cult shock troops," the author means me. By "dictating demands," one can only assume he refers to the post below, which discusses a bunch of red state folks & blue state folks who think respect for one another is more productive & generally better for this country than name-calling & silly labels that've ceased to mean anything through misplaced overuse. (See nihilist, socialist, radical, stalinist, nazi, fascist...).

It seems that [that guy] prefers to hate & demean others for not believing as he believes. The idea of Republicans & Democrats being civil to each other is foreign to him so, like a few of the others cited in the post below, he feels he must lash out, pretending to misunderstand, so he can attack those who posted to 52/48 as liberals (& traitors to the Con cause or fakes, one can only assume--Reading his diatribes--or indeed, any of the wingnut diatribes about this site--it's as though the Red voters who posted there don't exist) who want Republicans to roll over & play dead in the face of the Obama/Democratic victory.

The guy isn't stupid. He does understand the point of the site, and he has had folks explain it to him, just in case there was any point when he didn't. So why does he continue to pretend not to understand why it's there, and what all of the folks who've posted to it hope to accomplish? What does he think he'll gain from trashing the idea in several blog posts? What is so threatening to him, that he cannot allow these folks left & right who wish to get together to do so, even if he does not want any part of it?

What is it about some folks on the so-called freedom loving Right, that makes them want to control what you & I do? Why does gay marriage threaten them? Why is the idea of Red voters and Blue voters talking & getting along, rather than yelling labels & insults at each other, so scary that they must attack it?

If you don't want to do the things that others do, don't do them. No one is forcing anyone to go to or be a part of a gay marriage. If you prefer lashing out at others just for having different political views, go ahead & be as much of an ass as you feel you need to be... But if you believe in freedom, there's no reason under the sun to attack folks who are tired of all that lame partisan bullshit, & just want to get along as best we can, & perhaps try to work shit out WITHOUT calling each other names, or resorting to labels & talking points...

Join the rest of America, or stay in your tiny little online enclaves, bitchin' & moanin' about how much everyone who isn't drinkin' your flavor Kool-aid sucks... But if you choose the latter, please shut up about those who think your little bubble of like-minded, eternally angry folks is hurting the country, & wants to try it another way...

12 comments:

Donald Douglas said...

What's really sad here, Reppy, is that you're linking to a post in which Obama backers wanted a 14 your-old girl killed because she was wearing a "McCain girl" shirt.

I guess only conservatives have to be post-partisan, in your little utopian world of "can we all just get along."

A proven tool...

repsac3 said...

No, what's REALLY sad is that you & your little posse are the conservative equals to the liberal children who made those comments, and you are woefully unable to see it.

Both sides have to do better... But rather than bitching about others, perhaps you ought to start with yourself.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Repsac3, the problem with Mr. Duckless is that he is a third rate academic who is incapable of analytical thinking and misuses any false hypothesis or rigged statistic to justify his ideological shills. N=1 is not a valid sample size under any circumstances; but more to the point ...

The 14-year old H.S. student in his cited example exhibits more maturity and more intellectual curiosity than Duckless has ever demonstrated. If Duckless must stoop to the level of adolescent social research to justify himself, then he is truly pathetic.

Beyond me why you waste your time on this 100% character-disordered idiot.

repsac3 said...

This is my first reply to a friend who contacted me personally after reading this post. (I'll be posting the second reply, next.) She declined to have her comments posted by me or to comment here, herself.
------------------------------------

"Marriage is for a man and a woman. It has been that way since the beginning of time."

Actually, it hasn't always been that way... That is a myth... Check out Greek/Roman history, fer instance... Even among our European ancestors, marriage had more to do with power (for the wealthy) & property (for everyone else.) The idea of marriage for love is a relatively new idea, historically speaking...

As for marriage being for man & woman only, I guess it depends what you mean by that. If you've read my other posts, you already know that I see marriage as a religious rite, and most religions do see that union as being exclusively between man & woman. If that's what you mean, I agree. Every faith & denomination has the duty & the right to determine their religious doctrine, and I would oppose anyone saying a particular church must marry any couple that arrives on their doorstep, particularly if doing so would be against the tenets of their faith.

My issue is with rights under US law. Again, if you've been reading my posts, I believe the word marriage (& all those religious connotations that go with it) has no place in local, state or federal US law.

"Gay people can have domestic partnerships and that should be good enough."

Why should that be good enough? When has "separate but equal" ever been good enough?

As I said, the religious concept of marriage is fine & dandy with me. But US law should not be tinged with religious ideals, because this country was founded on freedom of (& for those who don't believe, from) religion.

If every law that used any form of the word "marriage" were amended to include whatever form of "or domestic partnership" would be grammatically correct for the sentence, I'd have no issue with that. (My personal view is that all law ought to deal with "civil unions," and recognize "marriage" as one way to legally be civilly united, but I'd be fine either way...)

It's not about marriage. It's about rights, privileges & protections under US law. When a gay couple legally united in New Hampshire is still legally united if they move to Florida, & maintain all the same rights & whatnot, that'll be a grand step forward. (It's called the "full faith & credit" clause in the US Constitution.) If you marry a guy named Paco from Ecuador, he is on the path to US citizenship. If Steve is civilly united to that same guy, Paco (& Steve) receive no new protections from the US government. Your new husband Paco will likely never be deported, but Steve’s domestic partner Paco can be, once he overstays his visa.

Change those laws, and every other one that treats domestic partnership differently than marriage under US law, and I'll agree that "marriage" -- as defined by many religions (though not all, including mine)--should be between a man & a woman.

As to Nero... You're not reading what I'm reading, my friend. Yes, people promoting Obama are a part of this 52/48 website. (They are the 52's) What he (& you, seemingly) is missing is that so are people who were promoting McCain before the election (48's). What both, as well as many third party voters are saying is, we can disagree without being disagreeable. We don't need to resort to lying, name-calling, & the endless, stupid, vicious labeling of anyone who doesn't see things just the way we do.

Nero is wrong. It isn't about allegiance to Obama, or to the Democratic Party, or to anyone or anything else. It's about respecting one's fellow citizen, even as we disagree. It's about talking AND LISTENING to each other. It's about not hating or belittling anyone for having a different (political, social, religious, ...) opinion than you do.

Expanded vocabulary?
What can I say...? Nero's an associate professor, and I love words... I think that the people who care about this stuff "get" most of it, and when they don't, they look it up, just like I do. I'm not so worried about people not getting the issues, as I am about people who just don't care about the issues, as though they don't make any difference to 'em...

repsac3 said...

This is the second of two replies (so far) to a friend of mine who contacted me personally after reading this post. She declined to have her comments reposted here by me or to comment here herself, now or in the immediate future.
----------------------------------

Do you know the history of "One nation, under God?"

"Under God" was added to the original Pledge of Allegiance (written in 1892, by a socialist, by the way) by an act of Congress in 1954, as a response to "godless" communism. My parents more'n'likely didn't have "under God" in the pledge they recited as kids in school. We haven't been "under God" for very long, judging by that standard, anyway...

It's all well & good for you to follow God's manual & believe every word in it, but as this nation was founded on religious freedom and the right for all citizens to worship as they choose without government interference--& that includes those who see God's manual as a well written fairytale, and have their own set of teachings which're probably written in a book, as well--the Bible has no role in US law, nor should it. While individual folks can knock on doors, yell & scream in praise from the top of soapboxes, and write blog comments galore extolling the wonders of their faith as being the true word of God over all others, the government can play no part in extolling the virtues or vices of any one faith, including yours. This is as much a Muslim nation as a Buddhist nation as a Christian nation as a Jewish nation as an atheist nation, by law, & since it's founding.

So, as far as marriage & your Bible, I agree with you, kinda... Christianity says marriage is between a man & a woman, and any who are good Christians should follow the precepts of their faith. Where we appear to part company is on allowing the secular, non-denominational US government to become the enforcement arm of the Christian faith on this or any other matter. Tradition & the founding documents say that that is not the US government's role to play.

The moral fiber of America has been trashed in some ways, of course... It is not our parent's America, even with their "Godless" Pledge of Allegiance... The stats on full-term abortions is pretty low, however, and the "left on a shelf to die" story is anecdotal (and unsubstantiated by any independent authority), & primarily told by a woman who is also involved in putting up billboards in AIDS-ravaged Africa, telling people there that condoms can kill. She is not all that believable a witness to start with, and she has an agenda.

Do the unborn have rights? No. Now, I don't think they should (& they never have, even in that more moral America of yesteryear), but those who believe otherwise are welcome to make their case & get that changed, as long as they do it on other than biblical terms.

"There should not be complete separation of church and state or we may as well just stop being sworn into court, rip down the 10 commandments from the capitol, etc."

Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you, primarily for the reasons I noted above. It was he who first wrote about the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. (& for real kicks, do a google search on "Jefferson Bible" to see what he thought of God's manual. It involves scissors.) ((Another reason to be at the blog... No ability to offer links in support of what one is saying, here...))

As for being sworn into court on a Bible, that tradition isn't based on any belief of the government, but on the beliefs of the person being sworn in. You swear on something YOU hold dear, which for most Christians is the Bible. You can also affirm as a US citizen, or swear on the book of your particular faith, as far as I know... Outside of court, people swear that what they're saying is true on their eyes, on their children, etc... It isn't about what the government believes, but about what the person doing the swearing believes. The idea is, "If I'm lying, may something evil befall the symbol (if not the actual thing) on which I'm swearing..."

Ten Commandments @ the Capitol: First off, the Ten Commandments are not posted anywhere in the capitol that I can find, thus ripping 'em down would be difficult. There are a few monuments that have the roman numerals from 1-10 on them, most of which represent the Bill of Rights, according to the artists who made them.

There is a frieze containing Moses holding two blank tablets, along with two other early eastern lawgivers, Confucius & Solon, at the Supreme Court building. All three men are honored for having some influence on crafting US law & the US court system, but Moses is not given any more prominence or recognition than the other two men, and as I said, his tablets are blank.

Finally, I reject your notion that we are abandoning God or that He is abandoning us. His protection & blessing over this country (or any country, the world over) are not well on their way to disappearing... The God I believe in will never turn His back on any person (or group of people, or country), no matter what they do.

I believe in the goodness & rightness of America, and don't see either, or us, as a nation, going into decline anytime soon. It is because I believe so strongly that I argue for the ideals on which the country was founded & to which it mostly adheres to this day.

Dave Miller said...

Good stuff Rep. Even before the election, I was ridiculed by many on the right for calling for a reasonable dialogue.

Perhaps what surprises me most, as a Christian no less, are those claiming Christ on the right who have said F off on reasonableness.

I often wonder how that attitude is squared with Christ.

Shaw Kenawe said...

What's really sad here, Reppy, is that you're linking to a post in which Obama backers wanted a 14 your-old girl killed because she was wearing a "McCain girl" shirt.

What's really sad here is that DD doesn't understand that what a few people who support Obama said doesn't mean ALL people who support Obama agree with those childish remarks.

It seems to me that people like DD and Mike of Mike's America are so full of anger and hatred that they can't see past their ideology to give the President-elect a chance.

These partisans have already declared that Obama's presidency will be a failure (have you seen Mike's idiotic post blaming Obama for the drop in the stock market?)

This is classic loser behavior.

Thank goodness the majority of the country is turning away from their bitterness.

Dave Miller said...

But Shaw, one of the things they are reacting to is the treatment of Pres. Bush.

The level of personal ridicule towards him from both official Dems and democratic voters has been horrible.

I am not defending any of his decisions, but for one group to castigate him for eight years, and then when they win, call for an end to that type of behavior seems a little disingenuous, doesn't it?

While i am disappointed by the reaction of the right, I can certainly understand it based on the left's treatment of Pres. Bush.

Deranged Leftwing Baker said...

I think killing someone for wearing a McCain t-shirt is a bit over the top. The re-education camps should be more than sufficient. Hail Obama!

repsac3 said...

There are nuts all along the political spectrum (but especially on the ideological ends, of course.) If it is the nuts from the left--who were pretty vicious to Bush, at times--that're now calling for a truce, I agree with Dave. But I don't think that's who the folks at 52/48 are. (And of course, there are plenty of 48's--Republicans, McCain (& presumably Bush) supporters--there, making the same call for respect for others & something akin to unity with the country for the sake of the nation.) I just don't think that those who see 52/48 as a Dem ploy for political peace under Obama after years & years of partisan war under Bush et al, are looking at enough of the picture.

I suspect that those who were vicious partisans on either side under Bush are still vicious partisans today, & will be vicious partisans under Obama. Perhaps 52/48 & other calls for restraint like it will change a few of 'em, but even if they do change (& I sincerely hope that does happen), they will be followers to the cause of respect for those on the other side, rather than the instigators & leaders of it. Those people were more'n'likely reasonable & respectful from the start.

I don't see 52/48 as being a Dem trick, and I don't think the nasty response to it from some quarters is a fact-based or reasonable reaction.

Donald Douglas said...

Reppy: If you're going to parse, you should pay attention to the key passages, for example:

"The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."

No objections? Why, if torture is so horrible, and the "dark side," blah, blah, bhah. There should be no gray zone with matter like this.

If Democratic leaders weren't just out for reelection, they'd have rejected even the thought of a briefing on waterboarding. Just like the Iraq war, they go along with national security requirements when it's electorally acceptable.

You lose, again, Reppy! FAIL!!!

repsac3 said...

Response to Nero's off topic whine posted at his blog where silly shit like his comment is actually taken seriously.