Ban on GOP adoption

Incidentally, when did a page-long response, an offer to dicuss it in depth in world, and the potential for a further response become "avoiding answering"?

i put your quote obviously out of context as satire, you are deliberatly and maliciously misquoting me

this is the last I am going to say about it to you without an intermediary

I am requesting that you provide proper attribution and fix the errors you have been made aware of

In fact, I demand it

try me

If you explain how what I did was malicious and clearly not satire, but yours was obvious satire and clearly not mallicious, I might consider it.

Besides, I lied, I didn't libel. Lieing is legal, just morally questionable.

The Party does believe that. It's in the Republican Party's National Platform. It is the official position of the Republican Party. Your agreement or disagreement on the matter is irrelevant. It borders on disingenuous to say that since a minority in the party disagrees with an official party position that the party doesn't hold that position. It does.

And if you want to support a political party that used bigotry against gay people in a cynical plan to "get out the vote" in the last presidential election it's your right. But don't tell us the party doesn't believe in the party's own positions. That's just absurd.

Oh, I don't know. I don't think most people believe a tenth of what their party believes. Most people just don't have that strength of convictions either way.

See, this is where I deviate from most people in politics. Particularly in the case of the two largest parties, I don't believe that the people in power accurately represent the views of all of their constituants. I view the "party" as the people who make it up, not the people who lead it.

I conceed the party's majority holds that position, and I don't think I've ever denied *that* (Maybe, I misspeak occasionaly). It's not a mandatory tennant of the party, however. However, it would be akin to saying, for example, that all republicans support the war, or all republicans like bush. We don't. Some do, some don't. This is why I try to *avoid* lumping people into a party like that. There are other, more useful, definitions out there.

The parties exist for convienience, although granted its a questionable sort of convienience, but they are, at the end of the day, nothing more than the sum of their parts - And a lot of their "parts" don't agree with everything a party says.

*shrug* 's what I get for being a moderate republican.

I can be hostile sometimes, but it's rarely genuine hostility. It's mostly artistic license. Forum discourse is a kind of theater after all. Of course like anyone else I can get frustrated when what seems obvious to me isn't to others. It also depends on my disposition on the subject. For some issues there's just no gray area for me anymore. I have no patience for people who take a purely partisan stance on something when it's obvious they've given it no more deep thought than what's needed to memorize the relevant cliches and talking points. None of that really applies to you since you've always struck me as someone who arrives at your positions through more careful consideration.



Agreed. It was an interesting read, and not what I was expecting. I just had a hard time finding much I found redeeming about it aside from the work ethic. What struck me most about it was that it seems to me to be the mentality that produces the excessive (and often naive) nationalism that I find really distasteful in American culture, and also the "heartland" distrust of intellectualism and multi-culturalism which leads to the use of "liberal" as a swear word. Having grown up in a very blue collar redneck environment before moving to the East Coast I don't find that I have any sentimentality for what I left behind.

I'm sure you see and relate to things in Jacksonianism that I'm just not seeing, and I'm no doubt looking at it through the lens of my own bias. Jacksonian ideology strikes me as the kind of peer and community indoctrinated default that people fall into who don't put a lot of thought into it and don't look at things in a global perspective.. and it does seem to me to be about being validated by conforming to community expectations. That's why I find your citing it as a chosen ideology really interesting. I know you do put a lot of thought into your positions. I must still be missing something.

I'm definitely of a more Jeffersonian mindset, though I don't really assign any particular labels to myself. I don't really like to declare membership in any particular ideology... just as I prefer to think of myself as a citizen of the world rather than as a flag waving American. Thanks for suggesting Meade. That was the most thorough explanation of Jacksonian thought I've read.

Well, stop it! Without Kendra, if I loose you, who will I have left to respect as a political opponent?



I don't know that i would say *nationalism* precisely. Pride, absolutely, but it's not exactly nationalism.



That IS one of the bigger weaknesses of Jacksonianism - Not precisely that it indoctrinates, I don't think I'd go that far, but it *does* tend to ignore a global perspective. To a certain extent, it's deliberate... A common jacksonian view is "clean up your own back yard", THEN worry about your neighbors." Most jacksonians have a pretty dim view of the UN for exactly that reason.



But, Chip, I thought you were a self-admitted dirty hippie?

FYI, I have nothing agaisnt true republicans, and I have stated numerous times here, I am in fact not a democrat and at the end of the day I don't think they are overall superior in any way

I do not beleive the current executive branch is a republican in any sense of the word and I do not think the legislative branch "republicans", for the most part, are strong enough or interested enough in sticking to core republican values at the expense of alienating themselves of the White House. They are, in my opinion, yes-men and lap dogs whose top 2 priorities are making money and staying in power.

There is an old saying "all is fair in love and war" and metaphoricly, the current RINO's (Republicans in name only) have declared war on the dems and will do and say anything to win

which shortchanges the rest of the people who make up the majority of the party, the distinction that you made between the leaders and members, who actually adhere to the principles of the republican

In WoW, sometimes I fight other players. SOmetimes I win, sometimes I lose. Most of the time it is close, but when I am utterly decimated in a fair fight by an enemy who was certainly, without question the better man that day, I respect him in defeat even if he is a sworn enemy on an opposing faction (similar to how the Red Baron was burried with a full military service by US forces)

I do not respect the current republican leaders (RINOs) in the least.

Well I recently stopped smoking pot, which might also explain the hostility. I may have to start again.

A break is good sometimes

I took about 6 months off before I started medicating again

as a matter of fact, just went to a rally at city hall to keep a dispensary that I use open (it will stay open. w00t), made the front page of the paper talking about it yestarday, and can legally posess and grow a good deal (up to 8 ounces dry, 6 mature plants and 10 seedlings) thanks to prop 215 and SB 420. I am one of 105 in my county with the county issues medical marijuana card

I Love California

I don't know that I wouldn't say "they aren't republican"... I will agree, however, that they are not truely *conservative*, absolutely. I think there are a few good ones, maybe even a couple in the core, but I don't think they are all that great.



I haven't declared war on any political party, though... Well, ok, I hate commie-pinko clowns, but that's mostly because I hate clowns.



I play WoW too, what server?

In that same vein, I don't do the PVP thing a whole lot. I'm actually not by nature a terribly agressive person, these forums really bring out the worst in me sometimes. If you'll try to avoid thinking of me as an orc, I'll try to avoid thinking of you as a troll



I support them in the same way I supported clinton - He's the president, and I'll respect that.

I do *not* agree with a lot of what they do, however.

Lightninghoof with a few SLers in the guild "Feted Inner Horde"

www.fetedinnerhorde.com

it is a RPPVP server and myself, PvP is pretty much the main reason I play and a great joy in my life

(btw we don't actually RP, but we have found that the only people geeky enought to RP are adults, hence the RP servers tend to be more mature)



but I am a troll. A Rogue Troll

(be very glad you aren't alliance)

My experience too, on the RP servers. I thought about trying out a PVPRP server for a while, but I heard they got very packed when they were released, and sorta lost interest.



Actually, I am alliance My main is a dwarven hunter... IE, "rogue-bane" Nothing is more hillarious than a rogue getting me in stunlock, then watching as my pet chews his face off.

I <3 Robert Hagan

Also, in responce to the singling out of the Republican Party - its just that, singling out. I think that's what Hagan is trying to get at, its a particular group of people that are being singled out and persecuted. Singling out the republican party just makes his point more clear (hard-hitting) as the drafters of the anti gay adoption bill are Republican.

Preventing all Republications from adopting makes about as much sense as preventing all gays from adopting.
==Chris

When you PvP, You WANT a lot of people. Lightninghoof was very full with up to 1 hour waits when we started. Haven't seen a queeu in a long time, easy server to get in



Well, bad rogues are Hilarious to watch screw up easy kills.

Hunters are glass to a good rogue. Especially if they get 1st (cheap) shot in

Kiting doesn't work when you can't get distance from the rogue

and you won't get distance from a good rogue

a Warlock who knows what he is doing however... that may be bad for a rogue

pallys suck too, but really only because you have to kill them like 3 full times to actually kill them without heal bubble. good thing they can't really deal damage

I belong to the "my pet solos mages" club... IE, beastmaster specced. The cheap shot is ok, but if a hunter both a paranoid trapper and a beastmaster, it's hard (in my experience) for a rogue to take him down solo. Even if he gets in a stunlock without getting trapped himself (careless on the hunter's part, most likely), the pet is going to be a real pain in the ass (literally) for the rogue while trying to finish off the hunter.

Elections are decided in the middle, not on the margins of the political spectrum. Some will always vote for one party. They are lost to the opposition forever. Others have no particular party loyalty.

In 1994, Democrats lost many union votes because gun-owning union members voted for Republicans. President Clinton stated he thought it was the deciding factor in the election.

The ACLU has built cross-party coalitions to fight the Patriot Act. Similar initiatives might work for issues in which significant disparate opinion exists in one or both parties. For example, rather fewer than all Republicans oppose gay marriage.

Absolutely. I'll never quite understand registering for one party or the other. Well I should say I do understand when people do so specifically so they can vote in the primary, but it seems that a huge number of people just vote for whatever candidate their registered party fields without pondering the issues at all.