Machiavelli wrote:

GMChad wrote:Please, oh please don't let Sarah Palin win anything unless it's Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery".

I suppose this is an example of the "new civility?" Do you really mean, Chad, that you would prefer that Sarah Palin be stoned to death than that she "win anything?"

Where is the outrage, Danvion? RickyP?

Well, let's see...

1) I had an infection last week that led to a fever and I was out of action for the weekend. So I didn't even see this until today
2) I nearly didn't bother reading the thread, thinking it would just be a list of fanboy comments about the latest big thing for the salivating right wing
3) I didn't get the reference, never having heard of Jackson or her short story about small town America
4) I note that Chad isn't running for office or launching an electoral campaign
5) I also note that this is Chad's website, and he makes the rules even if he can break them.

Still, bad Chad. Naughty boy, for suggesting that any violence ever be done to the fragrant fraud that is Sarah Palin.

Danivon, it's time you read "The Lottery".

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon, it's time you read "The Lottery".

Read it in college; It Takes a Village has many meanings.

Palin was my tipping point. When she was nominated as VP, I thought, "Yep, it is time for me to leave the party."

Am I the only staunch Democrat in this thread so far???

...and I don't really mean that I want to see Palin stoned to death, but I am bored to death of seeing/hearing Palin speak at all. I for one was not at all amused by the theatrics of the GOP putting in Palin the moment Hilary stepped down and promoting Michael Steele to chariman of the RNC as soon as Obama became president. I can't vote for a party that supports only one color, religion and gender.

No, Chad, you're not the only Democrat. I am for taking away all of these white guys money and giving it to minorities and deadbeats, too.

Haha, deadbeats? Well, not everyone plays the game, cause the game is rigged!

Yes, there are a lot of people who would be reliant upon the government to get by and many feel they shouldn't have to shoulder that burden. However, as Orwell pointed out, some animals are more equal than others. Not everyone is born with a high degree of intelligence, or a financial network of friends/family to support their aspirations for college or help open their own business. Others don't speak English, which SHOULD be OK, as I doubt many Europeans that came here by choice or refuge spoke English, either. Not all people have the motivation or drive to be successful; many have "given up". Some may have become pregnant too young, have parents who can't work, or have addictions that inhibit them from advancing their careers. None of those factors are necessarily their fault; they are social-economic problems. There are plenty of impediments to to the ladder of success and not everyone is able to live the "American Dream", particularly on minimum wage.

Until the real war on terror - class warfare - is over, I will continue to vote for those who act to defend the weak and powerless as opposed to those who only seek to help themselves.

GMChad wrote:I will continue to vote for those who act to defend the weak and powerless as opposed to those who only seek to help themselves.

I agree in total with this clear and concise political expression of my Christian faith. Radical Libertarianism, which has found popular expression in the GOP in recent years, has more in common with the teachings of Anton LaVey than it does with the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Now, that should stir the pot, nicely.

Condoleeza Rice is white? (and a man?)
Colin Powel?
Bobby Jindal?
....uhhh, Martin Luther King Jr

Eric Cantor is Jewish

You can have your Al Sharpton's and Barney Franks and Robert Birds,
Oregon Congressman David Wu

Yes, your side is just soooo much better?

and if you really wish to help the poor, then why would you support those who wish to hit the poor harder with cap and trade? Those who want to further bury ourselves in debt (hitting the poor hardest)? Those same Democrats who promised to remove don't ask don't tell but did not do so until Republicans got the power back, those Democrats who promised to work across the aisle but did just the opposite as they sat on their hands doing precious few of their promises when they COULD have pushed every one of them through?

Please, spare me the insipid "Republicans are White Christians looking out only for themselves" speech, it's not true and the Dems have done absolutely nothing to show themselves any different or special in any sort of way.

GMChad wrote:I can't vote for a party that supports only one color, religion and gender.

Welcome to the GOP, Chad. Glad you've finally realized that the Dems have nothing but contempt for women, gay and people of color unless they toe the party line.

Also glad to see you've given up the "eliminationist rhetoric" that lefties search so hard [in vain] to find in the Tea Party. Gotta be careful, friend. Never know when your "colorful turn of phrase" might inspire some lefty nut like Jared Loughner to go on a spree...

Some may have become pregnant too young, have parents who can't work, or have addictions that inhibit them from advancing their careers. None of those factors are necessarily their fault; they are social-economic problems.

Yes, we all know about those Republican gulags where guards force young go-getters at gunpoint to smoke crack and inject heroine in between forcibly impregnating young girls. One wonders, though, why these problems have gotten exponentially worse since the Dems declared their "War on Poverty." In the real world folks tend to place a great store in empirical proofs--that is, if they implement a "solution" and the problem gets worse, they deduce that the solution isn't working. In Liberal politics land, though, a worsening problem is just evidence that the solution was right all along and we simply need more of it.

Until the real war on terror - class warfare - is over, I will continue to vote for those who act to defend the weak and powerless as opposed to those who only seek to help themselves.

My God! Chad has become a right-to-lifer!

The Chads words are an inspiration to me. WWCD

Machiavelli wrote:...the Dems have nothing but contempt for... ...unless they toe the party line.

1) One of the main reasons for having a party is so a "line" can be formulated and then members can act collectively to turn that line into elements of governance;
2) Comparing the two parties, the Democrats have always been known as the one least able to keep everyone in line, least able to enforce party discipline, least able to get everyone "reading off the same page" - having the larger tent;
3) Reagan tried to make the GOP into a large-tent party but today I see efforts to shrink that tent. I note that "RINO" is used more frequently than "DINO". (I just googled "X in name only" and got 33,600 hits for the Dems versus 162,000 for "Republican in...") I also see many long-time Republicans facing primary challenges from the right because they are "not conservative enough" but I see that less so from the left. The Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and MoveOn.org constitute the left's vocal extreme that try to replace centrists in the Democratic Party; on the right there are not only bloggers but also a huge national movement that puts up candidates and has a congressional caucus. The Dems have nothing like the Tea Party; it pressures Republicans to be more conservative but it has no real effect on Dems.

Of course it's possible that the Democratic Party can be more tolerant of diversity as a whole yet, as you say, more contemptuous of "women, gays and people of color". All three groups have voted Dem overwhelmingly for decades and that can lead to being taken for granted. But insofar as your comments suggested that the Dems are less inclusive and tolerant than the GOP (which may not have been your intent, but the implication seems clear enough) I wished to offer these contrary or at least neutralizing observations.

Michael_Xavier wrote:Radical Libertarianism, which has found popular expression in the GOP in recent years...

Ummm no...

When his reply was made regarding Republicans being only white Christians, the reply was quite in line. I don't think one can take the reply to be completely accurate as you want to believe. And the above response seems to paint Republicans exactly as that wrong assertion ...white Christians only

Flat out wrong

Maybe I can paint the Democrats as only being poor based on the same (foolish) "observations"?

Minister X wrote:(I just googled "X in name only" and got 33,600 hits for the Dems versus 162,000 for "Republican in...")

Try "blue dog" Democrat.

Here's a litmus test:

1. Are you "pro-life?" Lots of luck in the Democratic Party!
2. Are you "pro-traditional marriage?" If you're in the Democratic Party, you are probably lying (see the current President, whose position changes dependent upon his audience).
3. Do you believe people earn money (as opposed to ripping someone else off or gaming the system or inheriting it--which is always illegitimate)? Good luck in the Democratic Party!

The Dems have nothing like the Tea Party; it pressures Republicans to be more conservative but it has no real effect on Dems.

Because it's hard to move farther to the Left than Pelosi and Obama. I think there is an equivalent to the Tea Party on the Left, but it's the Socialist Workers Party.

I do reject Chad's notion that Steele was installed. He was elected. It's not like he was bereft of qualifications, having been elected Lt. Governor in a very blue State.

I also reject these Ideas he put forward:

GM Chad wrote:Until the real war on terror - class warfare - is over, I will continue to vote for those who act to defend the weak and powerless as opposed to those who only seek to help themselves.

Class warfare is being waged by Democrats, not by Republicans. Democrats believe that wealth is always gained illegitimately and therefore should not be retained. They believe the answer to every problem is to create a government program funded by the wealthy. There are several problems with this, not the least of which is that it actually prevents money from doing good by filtering it through the many bureaucracies of DC, which inevitably squander most of it.

GMChad wrote:Some may have become pregnant too young, have parents who can't work, or have addictions that inhibit them from advancing their careers. None of those factors are necessarily their fault; they are social-economic problems.

I had to graduate HS early to take a full-time job in a Teamster's warehouse. The union took about 10% of my net take home. In return, I got a minimum wage job with medical benefits--handy for the child that was coming our way. However, the temperatures in the warehouse often reached 135 degrees (where we had to go grab boxes--we weren't back there all the time. The rest of the warehouse was a mild 95-100 degrees). In my next job (at a 7-11), I was robbed at gunpoint.

I began life firmly in the lower, lower, lower middle class. I think I'm pretty firmly in the upper middle class. I think my kids will do even better--all without welfare. It's a miracle!

Nothing inhibits people from escaping their economic situations. They just have to be wiling to work.

I daresay I've been in more government housing projects than most on these boards. I understand the problems better than most. In the vast majority of households, the problem is pretty simple: there is a lack of willingness to sacrifice short-term pleasure for long-term gain.

Addictions are real. However, I also know something about addictions. They can be overcome. They need not end life or mean that someone cannot succeed apart from dependence on government.

Some people need help. I understand that. However, one Party is built upon fostering dependence on that help--the DNC.