That was before he was an official spokesman of the Republican party. Has he said anything positive about affirmative action since then? It's also interesting to note his other positions listed in the same section, all except affirmative action are perfectly in agreement with the Republican party positions.
Thanks for the compliment, it's rare to find someone who can disagree but still recognize intelligence.
I am hyper partisan, yes. I'm the guy who says the outlandish lefty things, in order to provide a little counterpoint to outlandish right wing things.
Libertarians aren't conservative, they are radicals that want to totally change the nature and function of government. Liberals and conservatives are more similar to each other than to libertarianism.
Leviticus also says we should stone people to death for wearing poly cotton blends. But yeah, I'll give you that one. Log Cabin Republicans are not in lockstep with the rest on that one issue. But do the Republicans let the Log Cabin faction talk to the press? Do they get any airtime for their issues? No. They are shut out of the debate.
I meant 'racism being a problem.' Steele would have us believe racism is an imaginary non-problem that only Democrats use as a wedge issue.
Yes, it would matter immensely if you had better examples.
But I don't want to argue anymore, so I'll admit I was being hyperbolic and antagonistic and some Republicans do think for themselves. Personally I think that Democrats are far more likely to differ on basic policy issues, but obviously Republicans are not all clones or robots.
Ron Paul is a libertarian. The Log Cabin Republicans are gay, that does not mean they are not Christian! Plenty of gays are Christian. When has Michael Steel said racism is still a problem? As far as I've heard, all he does is blast Democrats for 'playing the race card.'
Nope, I've never had a problem getting jobs, I pretty much pick and choose my employment on my terms. Why would you think anything I've said here on Slashdot would keep an employer from hiring me?
I would offer up as counter evidence, FDR, Lincoln, even Eisenhower. Programs like Social Security and medicaid have helped millions and ensured a stable society. Without government, we would have no workplace safety laws, no child labor laws, we would still have segregation in the south, hell, we would still have slavery. Government is only a problem when the rich are allowed to corrupt the democratic process. Good government does not end up as evil without help, and that is what we need to stop, not government itself.
Sure, you can say stuff like that. Once. But the Republicans sure shut him up right quick once he went off message. Is he even allowed to give interviews anymore, or have they squirreled him away in Cheney's old 'undisclosed location?'
Reality shows that government shouldn't move much at all and they both have it wrong.
Obviously, this is where you and I disagree. Government should work continually to remove old, bad laws and implement new, better ones. Government, in my opinion, has a duty to lead, not to keep things the same. Unless things are actually working well. Which they aren't, so, government needs to start doing something different, not refrain from doing anything useful.
The Tea Party is a different party. Sure, they are attempting to take over the Republican party, but they have chosen to run absolute fruitcakes that even Republicans won't vote for.
Show me a Republican, candidate or office holder, who wants to reduce defense spending. Show me one who isn't Christian. Show me one who will admit racism is still a problem.
I can show you plenty of liberals and Democrats who support or at least don't oppose the second ammendment, starting with me.
Teabagger libertarian, not really a Republican, but still forced to tow the line. You don't see him advocating for legalization of Aqua Buddha, now do you?
I truly believe what I say, but you might need a sarcasm detector if you think I'm conservative. If government is keeping lists of potential troublemakers, then I am on those lists, not for what I've written, but for what I've done and the groups I've associated with. Because, you know, Food Not Bombs is obviously some kind of terrorist organization, and the IWW are clearly anti-capitalist pinko commies.
You have not yet given an example of 'being different.' Someone Claiming that Republicans are individuals who all think differently is a prime example of the sort of lock=step propaganda I'm talking about. Someone claiming that does not make it true. I've not seen evidence of any serious debate over any issue whatsoever.
Perhaps you could point me to an example of a serious Republican debate over policy, where Republicans differ, and their differences are not stifled immediately as they are forced to tow the party line.
I'm not following you at all here. What dissent is ArsonSmith voicing? "the republican party is made up of many individuals with differing opinions, and those opinions sometimes conflict with each other," is a standard line of Republican propaganda, and no Republican will openly dispute that idea even though they all know it to be a lie.
I wish Democrats were that organized and good at staying on message. The Democrats' problem is that they fight amongst themselves all the time because they can't all agree on the right way forward. Exactly the opposite of Republicans.
What, they all agree completely on the wrong way forward?
Yes, as I said, Republicans all agree on the wrong way forward.
No, you can't be ineffective and conform to the popular definition of diabolical genius. Diabolical geniuses get things done. They may be corrupt but they aren't ineffective.
I'm also not sure how one can be rabidly against "Those fat cat bankers and their pocket politicians" while advocating that they get tax cuts, but that's exactly what I've seen, I mean literally, back to back, "Our government is a corrupt plutocracy, which is why we need tax cuts for the rich!" whuthuh?
Perhaps I'm not doing the wingnuttery justice, because trust me, what I've seen them write is totally contradictory.
Well, then if so you should be quite worried, as you must certainly know that there is no true anonymity on the internet, particularity for those who have long standing usernames.
At the very least, 10 - 50 years from now, researchers will be able to trace many username and classify them in a manner like the credit bureau do today. Combined with 'real name hunters', people will be able to figure out who may be 'not worth hiring' or even just to embarrass politicians.
It might not be a good thing, but hey, that's progress. Good luck, you'll need it.
My real name has been prominently linked to my account here for over a decade and I've never had any complaints from potential employers about what I've posted online. Why should I be worried?
I wish Democrats were that organized and good at staying on message. The Democrats' problem is that they fight amongst themselves all the time because they can't all agree on the right way forward. Exactly the opposite of Republicans.
Unlike Slashdot where everyone agrees 100% with everyone else, the republican party is made up of many individuals with differing opinions, and those opinions sometimes conflict with each other.
Not that I've ever witnessed. The Republican party seems to be made up of interchangeable clones who all think, talk, and act in lockstep.
That's about as likely as Hitler's ghost running a successful campaign for Prime Minster of Israel. Even Republicans won't vote for a Palin presidency, no one is that suicidal.
Um, my guess is 'no one' because I don't chase money or material things. I like people, not things, and value open, intimate relationships far more than any property.
Hey, if you could install a brain fungus in 20% of the people that would make them vote for your plutocratic ideal without knowing about it, you would.
No I wouldn't, neither would you, neither would most people. We haven't been brainwashed into thinking that oppressive control is a central tenant of civilization like the rich have. Those raised rich, as a general rule, are taught that civilization needs the stick, and you can either be the one wielding it, or the one getting hit by it.
Slashdot Mirror
That was before he was an official spokesman of the Republican party. Has he said anything positive about affirmative action since then? It's also interesting to note his other positions listed in the same section, all except affirmative action are perfectly in agreement with the Republican party positions.
Thanks for the compliment, it's rare to find someone who can disagree but still recognize intelligence.
I am hyper partisan, yes. I'm the guy who says the outlandish lefty things, in order to provide a little counterpoint to outlandish right wing things.
Libertarians aren't conservative, they are radicals that want to totally change the nature and function of government. Liberals and conservatives are more similar to each other than to libertarianism.
Leviticus also says we should stone people to death for wearing poly cotton blends. But yeah, I'll give you that one. Log Cabin Republicans are not in lockstep with the rest on that one issue. But do the Republicans let the Log Cabin faction talk to the press? Do they get any airtime for their issues? No. They are shut out of the debate.
I meant 'racism being a problem.' Steele would have us believe racism is an imaginary non-problem that only Democrats use as a wedge issue.
Yes, it would matter immensely if you had better examples.
But I don't want to argue anymore, so I'll admit I was being hyperbolic and antagonistic and some Republicans do think for themselves. Personally I think that Democrats are far more likely to differ on basic policy issues, but obviously Republicans are not all clones or robots.
Ron Paul is a libertarian. The Log Cabin Republicans are gay, that does not mean they are not Christian! Plenty of gays are Christian. When has Michael Steel said racism is still a problem? As far as I've heard, all he does is blast Democrats for 'playing the race card.'
Three very bad examples. Got any better ones?
Nope, I've never had a problem getting jobs, I pretty much pick and choose my employment on my terms. Why would you think anything I've said here on Slashdot would keep an employer from hiring me?
I would offer up as counter evidence, FDR, Lincoln, even Eisenhower. Programs like Social Security and medicaid have helped millions and ensured a stable society. Without government, we would have no workplace safety laws, no child labor laws, we would still have segregation in the south, hell, we would still have slavery. Government is only a problem when the rich are allowed to corrupt the democratic process. Good government does not end up as evil without help, and that is what we need to stop, not government itself.
Sure, you can say stuff like that. Once. But the Republicans sure shut him up right quick once he went off message. Is he even allowed to give interviews anymore, or have they squirreled him away in Cheney's old 'undisclosed location?'
Republicans agree on the wrong way forward.
Democrats can't agree on the right way forward.
Reality shows that government shouldn't move much at all and they both have it wrong.
Obviously, this is where you and I disagree. Government should work continually to remove old, bad laws and implement new, better ones. Government, in my opinion, has a duty to lead, not to keep things the same. Unless things are actually working well. Which they aren't, so, government needs to start doing something different, not refrain from doing anything useful.
The Tea Party is a different party. Sure, they are attempting to take over the Republican party, but they have chosen to run absolute fruitcakes that even Republicans won't vote for.
Show me a Republican, candidate or office holder, who wants to reduce defense spending. Show me one who isn't Christian. Show me one who will admit racism is still a problem.
I can show you plenty of liberals and Democrats who support or at least don't oppose the second ammendment, starting with me.
Ron Paul?
Teabagger libertarian, not really a Republican, but still forced to tow the line. You don't see him advocating for legalization of Aqua Buddha, now do you?
Well put, I agree completely.
I have some 700$ RCA cables you would love. A 1200$ toilet seat that I swear will make thinks "move" easier.
Just swipe your credit card here....
Dude, that's not a credit card reader. Stand up and pull your pants back up.
I truly believe what I say, but you might need a sarcasm detector if you think I'm conservative. If government is keeping lists of potential troublemakers, then I am on those lists, not for what I've written, but for what I've done and the groups I've associated with. Because, you know, Food Not Bombs is obviously some kind of terrorist organization, and the IWW are clearly anti-capitalist pinko commies.
You have not yet given an example of 'being different.' Someone Claiming that Republicans are individuals who all think differently is a prime example of the sort of lock=step propaganda I'm talking about. Someone claiming that does not make it true. I've not seen evidence of any serious debate over any issue whatsoever.
Perhaps you could point me to an example of a serious Republican debate over policy, where Republicans differ, and their differences are not stifled immediately as they are forced to tow the party line.
I thought it was Darth Cheney? If the Liberal Central Committee changed who the puppet master is supposed to be, I didn't get the memo.
He didn't do any of that, according to all the liberals I know, Bush was a puppet and Darth Cheney was pulling the strings.
I'm not following you at all here. What dissent is ArsonSmith voicing? "the republican party is made up of many individuals with differing opinions, and those opinions sometimes conflict with each other," is a standard line of Republican propaganda, and no Republican will openly dispute that idea even though they all know it to be a lie.
I wish Democrats were that organized and good at staying on message. The Democrats' problem is that they fight amongst themselves all the time because they can't all agree on the right way forward. Exactly the opposite of Republicans.
What, they all agree completely on the wrong way forward?
Yes, as I said, Republicans all agree on the wrong way forward.
No, you can't be ineffective and conform to the popular definition of diabolical genius. Diabolical geniuses get things done. They may be corrupt but they aren't ineffective.
I'm also not sure how one can be rabidly against "Those fat cat bankers and their pocket politicians" while advocating that they get tax cuts, but that's exactly what I've seen, I mean literally, back to back, "Our government is a corrupt plutocracy, which is why we need tax cuts for the rich!" whuthuh?
Perhaps I'm not doing the wingnuttery justice, because trust me, what I've seen them write is totally contradictory.
Well, then if so you should be quite worried, as you must certainly know that there is no true anonymity on the internet, particularity for those who have long standing usernames.
At the very least, 10 - 50 years from now, researchers will be able to trace many username and classify them in a manner like the credit bureau do today. Combined with 'real name hunters', people will be able to figure out who may be 'not worth hiring' or even just to embarrass politicians.
It might not be a good thing, but hey, that's progress. Good luck, you'll need it.
My real name has been prominently linked to my account here for over a decade and I've never had any complaints from potential employers about what I've posted online. Why should I be worried?
I wish Democrats were that organized and good at staying on message. The Democrats' problem is that they fight amongst themselves all the time because they can't all agree on the right way forward. Exactly the opposite of Republicans.
Unlike Slashdot where everyone agrees 100% with everyone else, the republican party is made up of many individuals with differing opinions, and those opinions sometimes conflict with each other.
Not that I've ever witnessed. The Republican party seems to be made up of interchangeable clones who all think, talk, and act in lockstep.
That's about as likely as Hitler's ghost running a successful campaign for Prime Minster of Israel. Even Republicans won't vote for a Palin presidency, no one is that suicidal.
Um, my guess is 'no one' because I don't chase money or material things. I like people, not things, and value open, intimate relationships far more than any property.
Is that quote from Umberto Eco?
Hey, if you could install a brain fungus in 20% of the people that would make them vote for your plutocratic ideal without knowing about it, you would.
No I wouldn't, neither would you, neither would most people. We haven't been brainwashed into thinking that oppressive control is a central tenant of civilization like the rich have. Those raised rich, as a general rule, are taught that civilization needs the stick, and you can either be the one wielding it, or the one getting hit by it.