Please. If you don't like being painted by that brush, step to the side.
I will post what I want - when I want. And to who I want. That's how I roll.
Cool. Seems to be what everyone is doing including the OP.
But you didn't answer my question. Here it is again in case you just happened to miss it.
Let me make it simple: Does cementing a negative label upon millions of people, like racist, damaging to America and/or relationships amongst Americans? Is it divisive?
In regards to the OP title, no. It's a question about the Republican party which is an affiliation one chooses. The changes within the party and it's effect on the collective character of the party aren't merely labels being applied to manipulate a narrative, either. The post I shared early on got I to the history of the shift in the party being explored in the OP.
So what's the negative label that offends you here? Republican? The accusation the party has discarded values for winning at any cost? I mean if you don't identify as Republican you can sidestep that brush fairy easily. If you feel it is unfair to claim Republicans have abandoned character and values for political power then you have every opportunity to show how it's wrong.
But showing up saying you don't like being painted by that brush without offering more than shallow self-serving "civility"? Sorry. That's feeling not facts.
I will post what I want - when I want. And to who I want. That's how I roll.
Cool. Seems to be what everyone is doing including the OP.
Yes, but I don't remember telling him to step aside. Did you tell him to step aside?
But you didn't answer my question. Here it is again in case you just happened to miss it.
Let me make it simple: Does cementing a negative label upon millions of people, like racist, damaging to America and/or relationships amongst Americans? Is it divisive?
In regards to the OP title, no.
Got it.
If I can ask another question: If it's not damaging and divisive in your world, is it improvement and unifying? Do these tactics unite people and strengthen America and American relationships with one another?
So what's the negative label that offends you here?
I will respond to this one more time - should you ask it again, I will pass. It is not about my feelings or what offends me personally. It's about damage and division to a country that is currently very damaged and extremely divided.
But showing up saying you don't like being painted by that brush without offering more than shallow self-serving "civility"? Sorry. That's feeling not facts.
This is getting exhausting. Please read any of my previous posts that address your suggestions about my feelings.
To be fair, I am deeply grateful for a number of Republicans who didn't put politics over principles when push came to shove in 2020. We were a Mike Pence away from the end of Constitutional government. Every Republican judge who oversaw one of the dozens of claims the election was rigged put rule of law over party. Sometimes when Schmo talks about the need to combat religion and it's influence I find myself wondering if the solution is really to overtly side with those whose Christianity isn't just a get out of guilt free card, but genuinely behave like they believe their own behavior is what will be judged one day and not looking to a day when they will finally be proven right against their naysayers.
There are good women and men who identify with the Republican party, even some whose political views are wildly opposed to mine. Heaven knows being liberal doesn't make a person good, either. But I also say that because I think they are now good despite the influence of the Republican party. And that is what makes the OP question so critical.
There are plenty of even-tempered dialogues and debates happening in this country. Probably more than ever. Surprisingly, this isn't really a problem. There is plenty of capacity to be respectful in discussion and debate. Just go to YouTube. Everyone has a YouTube channel. Channel wars are great for getting clicks, and inviting the opposition to the show is a great way to self-promote. There seems to be a real incentive to sit down with the opposition and be super respectful and kind. It's very strange how this works.
As an example since I came across it recently, check out this 2.5 hour discussion (I watched pieces) between Friendly Atheist and two Christian Nationalist preachers. These preachers are super respectful. Everyone gets their share of time to speak. Now, these preachers do bring up their concerns about Friendly calling them hate preachers. That's a potential set up for stochastic terrorism against them, as they point out. But they talk about it nicely.
So they nicely talk about the issues and potential misunderstandings. They respectfully discuss the celebration of trans murders, Sandy Hook being fake, a murder committed against a trans by a congregation member, and lots of good issues. I hope they covered the importance of stoning reprobates to death with the accompanying splatter of blood from the stones (or bullets) as preached per the book of Leviticus. While I've watched Pastor Thompson's sermon on that, I did not encounter a discussion about it while skipping through this discussion.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
Sometimes back we had what I image was intended to be a well-meaning thread based on a Dennis Praeger vid. The idea it conveyed was that, while folks might self-identity as liberal which was understood to be "bad", most weren't leftists or progressives which were the actual "bad" folk. It was presented as an olive branch, an attempt at saying we were all really more alike then were those folks over there, and much of the hostility was misplaced. You may recall it was received as misunderstanding both what it means to be a liberal, to be leftist and why most folks didn't agree as self-identifying liberals. I hope you recall there was some effort put in by folks to explain what they viewed as wrong with the Praeger vid and definitions it proposed. And the general direction of responses was aimed at the misrepresentation presented with a bit of chafing over an outsider saying they better understood what being liberal meant.
Effectively "You want this conversation? Here's where you have things wrong."
It seemed to me then the problems arose more from your olive branch being rejected as it was delivered from a flawed position than anything else and the discussion ended unproductively.
The comments in the debate thread struck me much the same way. The idea folks should be charitable to Biden had that same, "Here's my olive branch to you all. We should be nice to Biden rather than dogpile him, and be more mad at whomever propped him up and pushed him out onto the stage. See? We can get along."
So we have this thread and the question of when Republicans abandoned their values may appear to you like the Praeger U vid appeared to folks here as being not even wrong. But it wouldn't hurt to actually explain why the premise is wrong rather than just trying to shame Kish for having asked the question. And that's what I find baffling here. If you don't care to correct the premise why bother? It comes across as very insincere and self-interested. Trump appears to be making a concerted push to end rule of law and Constitutional authority to be replaced by rule of one and his own authority. Republicans were the first beach and you not only fell but turned your guns around on the country siding with him. That's crazy. It looks crazy. It seems like the Republicans who question it get attacked by other Republicans and pushed out. That, in my opinion, transcends anyone feeling bad because they don't like hearing Republicans questioned as to where their morals went.
Last edited by honorentheos on Mon Jul 01, 2024 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
Sometimes back we had what I image was intended to be a well-meaning thread based on a Dennis Praeger vid. The idea it conveyed was that, while folks might self-identity as liberal which was understood to be "bad", most weren't leftists or progressives which were the actual "bad" folk. It was presented as an olive branch, an attempt at saying we were all really more alike then were those folks over there, and much of the hostility was misplaced. You may recall it was received as misunderstanding both what it means to be a liberal, to be leftist and why most folks didn't agree as self-identifying liberals. I hope you recall there was some effort put in by folks to explain what they viewed as wrong with the Praeger vid and definitions it proposed. And the general direction of responses was aimed at the misrepresentation presented with a bit of chafing over an outsider saying they better understood what being liberal meant.
Effectively "You want this conversation? Here's where you have things wrong."
It seemed to me then the problems arose more from your olive branch being rejected as it was delivered from a flawed position than anything else and the discussion ended unproductively.
The comments in the debate thread struck me much the same way. The idea folks should be charitable to Biden had that same, "Here's my olive branch to you all. We should be nice to Biden rather than dogpile him, and be more mad at whomever propped him up and pushed him out onto the stage. See? We can get along."
So we have this thread and the question of when Republicans abandoned their values may appear to you like the Praeger U vid appeared to folks here as being not even wrong. But it wouldn't hurt to actually explain why the premise is wrong rather than just trying to shame Kish for having asked the question. And that's what I find baffling here. If you don't care to correct the premise why bother? It comes across as very insincere and self-interested. Trump appears to be making a concerted push to end rule of law and Constitutional authority to be replaced by rule of one and his own authority. Republicans were the first beach and you not only fell but turned your guns around on the country siding with him. That's crazy. It looks crazy. It seems like the Republicans who question it get attacked by other Republicans and pushed out. That, in my opinion, transcends anyone feeling bad because they don't like hearing Republicans questioned as to where their morals went.
Thank you for this. I actually was a big fan of Dennis Prager. In the '80s I always looked for his column in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. Many times he, Hunter S. Thompson, and William Safire would write on different subjects when Reagan was President. Thompson's article linking John the Revelator visions to LDS were pretty funny. Prager also had a Sunday night show on KABC talk radio from ten o'clock to midnight called Religion on the Line. He would moderate the show which had a priest, rabbi, and pastor, occasionally adding a Mormon or Seventh-Day Adventist. When there wasn't a Dodger game on he would have a call-in session about politics from nine to midnight during the weekdays. If there was a game on, I used to yell, come on 9th inning because if it was almost the 9th he might come on from ten to midnight.
Those were the days: reading Hunter S. Thompson's views about John the Revelator and LSD, going back to the airport and checking in Paul Dunn, and as I drove home at night listening to Dennis Prager's talk show.
Thompson's article linking John the Revelator visions to LDS were pretty funny.
Do you mean "LSD?"
Those were the days: reading Hunter S. Thompson's views about John the Revelator and LSD, going back to the airport and checking in Paul Dunn, . . .
Was checking in Paul Dunn part of your job there at the airport, or were you a volunteer?
Thanks, again Dr. Shades. You are correct. It’s LSD not LDS. Yes, I checked in people as part of my paid job. Of the thousands and thousands I met and gave instructions to one was Paul Dunn and the other was Thomas Monson. When I told my mom I met Paul Dunn she saw hope in my eyes. I’m sure she called church headquarters the next day and told him or his secretary who he interacted with and soon after I got a letter from Paul Dunn saying it was nice to meet me and thanking me for helping him.
