Ban on GOP adoption

But you still support the party that proposes and pushes for those types of bills.

So he should throw out all the positions of the party that he agrees with just because there is one that he doesn't rather than fighting to change that one? Better for him to turn to the Democrats with whom he agrees on one thing but disagrees on everything else?

Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

-Kiamat Dusk

Bah. My forked tongue was planted firmly in cheek - I guess I need to make the "wink" emoticon bigger next time.

Actually, I think it's good to have GLBT members who are active in the Republican party. I would hope that they would, eventually, have some influence and bring the party (and much of the focus) to more moderate views on some of the social issues - specifically with regard to the GLBT community and its lack of equality in the U.S.

Because with the exception of their views on sexuality, I'm pretty much a strait-down-the-line Jacksonian.

If you guys can manage to field a someone who isn't offensive to a Jacksonian, I'll consider voting for him.

Hmm, the things that happen when I make a somewhat flippant remark then go off to work and other RL stuff...

I didn't mention the bill that inspired the "GOP abortion ban" bill for a reason, namely that I wasn't talking about it. But while we're on the subject, I think it's a stupid, small-minded bill that shouldn't have been put to paper. IMO the government should stay out of peoples' bedrooms, without proof of actual harm occurring (which doesn't exist in the case of the original bill).

What I was talking about was the counter-bill's author not only treating all members of the GOP as intolerant pricks, but ignoring that those of his own party (including himself, at that) can be just as bigoted and intolerant of dissenting opinions, and often are more than ready to get into personal insults just because the target of those insults had the gall to disagree with them.

Looks like discrimination to me...but I guess that's okay all Republicans are evil. Democrats have never made any mistakes. They are perfect little robots

How's that whole manifest destiny, patronage (cronyism), and executive branch being above the law thing working out for you?

I should tell you to take out your anti-Bush frustrations elsewhere, since it's in no way germain to the topic at hand, but I'll oblidge. You do seem to be channeling the spirit of Mulch or Kendra a bit much however, Chip. You're normally more open to discussion and less inclined to lump. Ah well.

On the first one, it's working out pretty nicely, actually. It's a common mistake that the Jacksonian ethic is pacafistic, it isn't. However, behind your question is the modern theory of American Imperialism, which you would have to try to sell elsewhere, since I don't buy the underlying theory.

On the second, it's to be expected when dealing with humans, if regretable. I don't view it as inherently a flawed concept, however. Has nothing to do with Jacksonianism, or any other political ideology specificly, however.

And I'm not going to let you get away with the third, actually, even though I said I'd oblidge you. I in no way believe the executive branch is above the law, and never have said I did. Nor is that a tenant of Jacksonianism... Anything but, actually, Jacksonians hold that the the government is ultimatly answerable to the people.

Trying to 'prove' Kendra and Mulch's accusations that I'm a Bush appologist, Chip? I thought you knew me better than that.

Nah, I just find labeling one's self as a strict Jacksonian (or constructionist, or republican, or democrat, or any other narrow definition) to be a bit silly in this day and age. To me it seems to ignore what democracy is supposed to be about in the first place... compromise and consensus. No political party, philosophy, or religion corners the market on good ideas.

As for what patronage has to do with being Jacksonian... it started with Jackson and was called the Spoils System. It continues to this day and is one of the things that's most broken in our system of government. It begets political appointments based on partisanship and money rather than experience and ability. "Heck of a job, Brownie!" Cronyism, and money for influence are Jacksonian to the core.

The one thing Jackson did that I fully agree with was extend voting rights to the "common man" (of course at the time that meant extending it to white men, not just landed white men). Of course any effect that had on making government accountable to the common man is completely negated by patronage. Strict Jacksonianism is deeply flawed, just like strict anything.

Right, it is discrimination- that's the point - so that maybe, just maybe, the republicans who are trying to pass anti-gay bills will realize that they're being discriminatory.

I e-mailed Sen. Hagan thanking him for sticking up for gay people, and told him how much it made me laugh - he needs to come to PA

Then would you please run for office? The Republican party needs people like you.

I said "strait down the line", not strict I'm a firm believer that any plan needs to be able to flex a bit. By "strait down the line" I mean that except for their views on sexuality, I pretty much agree with all the points of jacksonianism.



Not really. "Jacksonianism" isn't being a carbon copy of Jackson. Everyone has a few flaws.

Have you read Meades definitions? That's the definition I use.



I would disagree with the notion that patronage automaticly negates accountability, but that's another story.

No, but I'll check it out. I'm always interested to learn why people assign themselves the narrow labels that they do.

Because its easier than typing a 20 page essay to even begin to summarize your views.

It's like why we call it a "whopper" rather than "A patty of ground beef, a quarter-inch thick and four inches across, between two halves of a bun made from bleached flour risen with yeast and topped with poppy seads, with finely shredded lettuce, three thinly sliced tomato slices, and a sauce made of mayonase."

Damnit, now I'm hungry.

I'm still reading, but it seems to me that Meade's definition, while no doubt an accurate description of "middle-American" red state values, is hopelessly self-contradictory and in many ways embodies the worst aspects of our culture. Jacksonian "individualism" seems to me to in actuality be tribalist conformity of the good ol' boy variety. Not at all what I consider genuine individualism... in fact, quite the polar opposite. Interesting. As someone on the fringe I find it quite baffling that you relate so strongly to Jacksonian ideology.

Its about time

Of course not. Just because the Republican Party's national platform contains blatant bigotry doesn't mean that all Republicans are bigots. Belonging to a Party that believes it is morally necessary to discriminate against gay people doesn't automatically make you a bigot. It just shows where your priorities lie.

What's up with the Right wingers? Chip criticized the Christian/Republican menace on a very specific issue. When the wing-nuts can't argue the issue, they exaggerate like spoiled teenagers. Mom! You never let me do anything! Liberals always blame everything on Republicans.

But, boy-howdy, we liberals don't dare do the same. See how angry they get when they think we called all Republicans bigots? As if it isn't bigotry to vote for a bigot.

The party does not believe that. An unfortunate number of people in the party may believe that, yes, but the party does not.

Unlike some people who run from anything they find disagreeable, however, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. Nor could I, in good concious, support a party I disagree with in the majority of their opinions because they *agree* with me in one specific opinion.

Though on a serious note, I can't recall in recent memory a time the left did NOT blame something going wrong on the right. Or vis versa, for that matter. It's just how politics have (e/de)volved.



First of all, I don't vote for bigotry.

So, second, yes, I get angry when I get called a bigot. It is not, however, an example of me being a hypocrite. I get frustrated with people on my side who level baseless insults against liberals too. If you actually bothered to pay attention to my posts before now, you would realize I'm pretty much sick of the behavior of *all* sides of the political spectrum at the moment.

Please do not, for the same reason, lump me in with Kiamat. I agree with his opinions occasionaly, but he is not on "my side".

I might respond to this in depth, but right now my head is fuzzy from cold medication and a nap I didn't intend to take. I'm responding a little now so that you don't think I'm ignoring you.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of point-counterpoint style political arguements on the forums, it doesn't get anywhere and I think each side comes across wrong to the other side. That having been said, Chip, I gotta say... I'm kinda disapointed in you lately. You used to come across as someone I considered very fair and even-handed, even when you disagreed with people, one of my favorite posters in fact for exactly that reason. But, lately, you've had a hostile edge that I could do without.

Anyhow, to address you in brief, and I'd be more than happy to discuss this in world if you'd rather, I find the real-time element is a lot more condusive to honest discussion, you're not all wrong, but I think it's a matter of perspective.

Meade isn't kind to any of his four labels - they represent both the best and the worst of those particular mindsets. I find that honesty refreshing - No side comes across as the prophet reborn, nor as the antichrist. I find that type of honesty refreshing, which is why I'm willing to use his terms - I could find all sorts of political thinkomatics to suggest labels that make me sound like the best thing since sliced lunchmeat, and the opposing sides sound like the worst thing since American mustard, but what would the point be? That's just thought-masturbation. In that same vein, I recognise that I'm not perfect, and make no such claims (except in jest ), because I see doing anything else as the height of arrogance.

With regards to tribalism and "good old boy" mentality and a loss of individuality... On the former, you're right on a global scale, wrong on a national scale. On the second, your right through virtue of realism, but it's not an inherent belief in jacksonianism, it's just something that happens - to everyone, not just jacksonians. Got good, but it's there and we have to deal with it for the moment. On the last, I think you're wrong, but I think we could never come to an agreement on the forums. I will say that it's not "different for difference's sake" type of individuality. It's more of an "I don't need you to validate me" type of individuality. But, again, I don't think we'll agree here, and I feel cruddy enough without going into a forum arguement tonight.

You know those cold drugs that claim they don't fog your head? I have news for you.

They lie.

Hey Reitsuki, can you tell me your opinion on the republican party?

Pretty much.

I'm not really an asshole. Just a half-asshole who's in a bad mood today.

I forget what is SOP on Fark.com might not be everywhere.

you are misquoting me and I demand you change it

you can not publish made up quotes(or publish them on the forums)

wtf is the matter with you?

you can use your nyquil excuse to avoid debating chip but you can't use it to make up quotes that I didn't say

I demand that you edit your post to make the correction of my quote

intentional misattribution could result in the Mulch Foundation seeking massive punitive damages to recover from and prevent further loss of reputation

you have been put on notice

Hey, you felt free to answer my question for me, I'll feel free to ask my own question.