Skip

The Political Scene
September 7, 2008 4:32 PM   Subscribe

Party Faithful. Can the Democrats get a foothold on the religious vote?
posted by semmi (224 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
Trick question, nearly all Democrats are religious.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:35 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


Should they court the religious right? Isn't that where the Dominionists are? Isn't that pretty much going to lose them their base?
posted by dibblda at 4:44 PM on September 7, 2008


...nearly all Democrats are religious.

Exactly.

As from the in/famous Palin thread (where the article has also been mentioned in passing), regarding Christian voters:
How Does the Faith of Republicans, Democrats Measure Up?
"In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, the Barna Group released a report measuring Republicans and Democrats on Christian commitment.

The new survey, based on interviews with 1,003 adults in January 2007, found that the gap between the two political parties in terms of Christian commitment is not large, as many might assume. The most significant differences were found in the area of beliefs rather than behavior.

According to survey results, 57 percent of Republicans assert that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches compared to 40 percent of Democrats. Republicans are also twice as likely to believe Satan is a real spiritual entity (33 percent versus 17 percent); more likely to reject the idea that good works can earn salvation (35 percent versus 23 percent); more commonly describe themselves as absolutely committed to Christianity (61 percent versus 48 percent); more likely to deem their religious faith to be important in their life (77 percent versus 67 percent); and more likely to believe that God is the all-knowing, perfect Creator and Ruler of the universe (75 percent to 65 percent).

Overall, 51 percent of Republicans qualify as born-again Christians, according to the Barna Group, compared to 38 percent of Democrats.

...Broken down to denominational affiliation, the survey found that 23 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats are Catholic; 36 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of Democrats are non-mainline Protestants; and 21 percent of Republicans and 13 percent of Democrats are mainline Protestants."
posted by ericb at 4:45 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


But the "religious vote" is that which puts their religious concerns -- pro-life, anti-homosexual agenda, anti-secular humanism -- first, before their own personal concerns (jobs, welfare, social services, personal freedoms, etc).

They will vote for the most Godly, ie. Palin.

Seeing this this guy's avatar, from BoardGameGeek, drives home the point. These people want to see a pro-life, pro-creationism, anti-homosexual -- Christian -- in the White House. McCain didn't really float their boat, especially not after calling Robertson and Falwell "evil influences" in the party in 2000, but the Palin move more than made up for this.

As discussed to death in the previous thread, the vote is going to come down to OH, VA, CO, and NH.
posted by troy at 4:47 PM on September 7, 2008


I believe in god, but I don't believe in religion. Who should I vote for?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:50 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


Why are the Democrats ignoring the peace votes? Forget about trying to get the republican base... if Obama is smart, he'd start with Ron Paul's Pro-peace message and get all Dr. Paul's supporters... easy...
posted by watercressprincess at 4:51 PM on September 7, 2008


It occurred to me today that maybe Democrats would have won the last two elections, and this current one, if they had nominated a supremely stupid candidate. They could still have the minders calling the shots backstage, so that nothing gets royally effed up, but this "electing the most qualified candidate" stuff is not doing them any favors - electorally speaking, at least. So, yes, I think the Dems can get a foothold in the religious vote - they just need to nominate a some ragged looking street preacher to head the ticket.
posted by billysumday at 4:53 PM on September 7, 2008 [8 favorites]


Iif Charles Manson were to run for office as pro-life, evangelicals would vote for him. Why bother?
posted by fungible at 4:53 PM on September 7, 2008 [3 favorites]


Well, most Catholics, like most liberals are guilt-ridden. Sounds like synergy waiting to happen.
posted by jonmc at 4:54 PM on September 7, 2008


/Catholic, liberal
posted by jonmc at 4:55 PM on September 7, 2008


Obama today made it quite clear that his muslim faith should not be questioned. George S. made a feeble attempt to correct him but to see it live on TV was a gem. Without a telepropter, Mr. B. Hussen Obama struggles.
posted by shockingbluamp at 5:02 PM on September 7, 2008


The Dems are not proposing any change, so they get nailed. Obama's strategists should learn that honesty is the best policy. Their new campaign logo should say "Do you want to smash into a brick wall at 30 mph or 100 mph?" If you want 100 mph, then cast your vote for the McCain/Palin... If you want change, you gotta look beyond the two parties.
posted by watercressprincess at 5:05 PM on September 7, 2008


If they can't do it by running the deeply Christian Obama against the pretty-much areligious John McCain then the answer is no, no they can't.
posted by Artw at 5:15 PM on September 7, 2008


Page 5: “[Obama's] insights there were not only significantly different from the Democrats of the past,” Kmiec says, “but they were significantly better than either the Democrats or the Republicans of the past, in the sense that he argued that religion shouldn’t be a wedge issue, and that we should stop demonizing each other on that basis. Religion necessarily is a source of morality, and morality is necessarily the place where we draw laws from. That in itself, to have acknowledged that, was a key sales point for me, because even the Supreme Court gets itself tangled on that proposition.”

Interestingly, Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence, which held:

"The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life".

So the court held 6-3 that religious morality was not a sufficient basis for public law.

O'Connor was replaced with Alito, so that vote is 5-4 now. If McCain wins, here's hoping Justice Stevens has been taking his vitamins.
posted by troy at 5:17 PM on September 7, 2008


Not a chance. The VP choice shows it all. Obama went with safe, tame, boring past. McCain went with FANGS OUT, ABORTION-HATE, LIBERAL-BOOK-HATE, MILITARY-DEISM surprise. Who do you think US Christians are going to choose, without even thinking about it? A master-stroke by McCain, who will be the next President of the US.
posted by telstar at 5:18 PM on September 7, 2008 [4 favorites]


McCain is old and is a liar, he is not even good looking...why are people still voting for him? Dems have to think about that.
posted by watercressprincess at 5:18 PM on September 7, 2008


God willing.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:19 PM on September 7, 2008


As discussed to death in the previous thread, the vote is going to come down to OH, VA, CO, and NH.

And I believe you were refuted quite energetically in that thread so why drop in it here again?
posted by spicynuts at 5:19 PM on September 7, 2008


Interesting article. The Catholic movement always seems applicable to the progressive movement because it's pro-labor, anti-poverty, anti-death penalty, and pro-social justice. It's a shame that most people can't get past abortion, birth control, and sex ed (unless, of course, the issue applies to them, and then all options are on the table).

As soon as Obama gave that corny line about the Blue States' awesome god, I knew that he was going to be the candidate in 2008.

In Rove’s view, Obama has already begun to transform the faith-unfriendly Democratic image that made the Republicans’ 2000 and 2004 strategies possible.

I agree with Turd Blossom here. If Obama does a decent job of converting the "wishy washy" Christians (i.e. the ones who voted for GWB cuz he's one of them), it should be a blowout.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:19 PM on September 7, 2008


Obama today made it quite clear that his muslim faith should not be questioned. George S. made a feeble attempt to correct him but to see it live on TV was a gem. Without a telepropter, Mr. B. Hussen Obama struggles.

"Sometimes goofs like any human being" is not quite the same as "struggles."

Also: You lay off the "B. Hussein Obama" crap, and we won't start calling his opponent J. Sidney McCain III. Deal? The man did not choose his name; what he did choose was his faith. Y'know, Christianity.
posted by Tomorrowful at 5:20 PM on September 7, 2008 [13 favorites]




also from Page 5: Kmiec endorsed Obama on March 23rd—Easter Sunday, his conservative friends noted. A few weeks later, while attending a meeting of Legatus, a Catholic business leaders’ association founded by the conservative philanthropist Tom Monaghan, Kmiec attended Mass with his colleagues. The priest declined to serve him Communion.

hah hah!

Page 7: Shortly afterward, of course, McCain thrilled his conservative base further with the selection of the fervently Christian Governor Sarah Palin, of Alaska, as his Vice-Presidential nominee. (“A home run,” Reed declared to the Times, and Dobson called the choice “outstanding.”)

Palin's not just a home-run, but a freaking grand slam, making the score 7-7 going into the top of the 7th.
posted by troy at 5:26 PM on September 7, 2008


This thread is also going to a weird, dark place.
posted by Caduceus at 5:26 PM on September 7, 2008


You lay off the "B. Hussein Obama" crap

I say let 'm. Easier to identify the idiots posting here that way.
posted by troy at 5:27 PM on September 7, 2008 [4 favorites]


Obama today made it quite clear that his muslim faith should not be questioned.

Oh dear. Well, that's the news gap made by the lack of any new crazy pastor clips filled for the next two months.
posted by Artw at 5:32 PM on September 7, 2008


I say let 'm. Easier to identify the idiots posting here that way.
posted by troy at 8:27 PM on September 7


Linking to the Washington Times is enough of a give away.
posted by lyam at 5:34 PM on September 7, 2008


Obama today made it quite clear that his muslim faith should not be questioned. George S. made a feeble attempt to correct him but to see it live on TV was a gem. Without a telepropter, Mr. B. Hussen Obama struggles.

If you actually read what he was saying in the context of the interview, he was referring to the canard that his faith was Muslim, not that he was actually Muslim. There is nothing to see here. Stephanopolis misunderstood and corrected him, so he just went along rather than make a big deal of it.
posted by Mental Wimp at 5:34 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


obama is an expert vote farmer. He will come up with something to try to get as many votes possible from any demographic. But he can only flip flop on issues and talk long and articulate about nothing for so long before it becomes obvious his only agenda is a CFR one of dissolving the United States no matter the promises. He can only promise so much before it becomes obvious he intends slavedom for the American population to his puppet masters. Be it free room and board, health care, what ever socialist gifts just like a monkey in a zoo trading freedom for security.
posted by godseyeview at 5:35 PM on September 7, 2008


If you actually read what he was saying in the context of the interview, he was referring to the canard that his faith was Muslim, not that he was actually Muslim. There is nothing to see here. Stephanopolis misunderstood and corrected him, so he just went along rather than make a big deal of it.
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:34 PM on September 7


You're exactly right, however, in this age of sound-bite-as-truth this is still considered a gaffe. Or it should be.
posted by lyam at 5:36 PM on September 7, 2008


And I believe you were refuted quite energetically in that thread so why drop in it here again?

Because Colorado has a very large evangelical-fundamentalist / religious-right Christian vote. In that thread it was mentioned that they selected a Democratic Governor recently, but was not mentioned was that both choices for Governor were committed Catholics and ran as anti-abortion candidates.
posted by troy at 5:39 PM on September 7, 2008


Overall, 51 percent of Republicans qualify as born-again Christians, according to the Barna Group, compared to 38 percent of Democrats.

When is someone going to call bullshit on these numbers? They're starting to look like those MADD "97% of every bad thing ever is caused by drunk driving" scare stats. Granted I live in a liberal area, but I can count on one hand the number of people I've met in my life who I would describe as "born again Christians."
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:41 PM on September 7, 2008


Also:

We worship an awesome God in the blue states.
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:42 PM on September 7, 2008


Better question: Can rational thought get a foothold in America?
posted by DU at 5:43 PM on September 7, 2008 [14 favorites]


If they can't do it by running the deeply Christian Obama against the pretty-much areligious John McCain then the answer is no, no they can't.

John McCain's not areligious—he worships John McCain.
posted by gerryblog at 5:44 PM on September 7, 2008


Granted I live in a liberal area, but I can count on one hand the number of people I've met in my life who I would describe as "born again Christians."

I live in what many consider the most liberal city in the world, but I encounter these two on a weekly basis (along with the Scientologists, the Nation Of Islam, the Falun Gong, tha Bhagavad Gita balheaded fuckers, the Hare Krishnas, and Jews for Jesus). If your into politics in this country, anywhere, you gotta deal with religion.
posted by jonmc at 5:47 PM on September 7, 2008


Finally, Page 8:

In Rove’s view, Obama has already begun to transform the faith-unfriendly Democratic image that made the Republicans’ 2000 and 2004 strategies possible.

“The overt hostility of some elements of the Democratic Party is being usefully scrubbed away by Obama,” Rove says. “And, for that, everybody in America ought to be thankful.”

ah, the framing. Life was so much enjoyable when this political BS was a 12 hour planeride away.

At any rate, let's have a SF Bay Area election night mefi meetup; I think the CO polls close at 8:00PM our time.
posted by troy at 5:47 PM on September 7, 2008


If you actually read what he was saying in the context of the interview, he was referring to the canard that his faith was Muslim, not that he was actually Muslim. There is nothing to see here. Stephanopolis misunderstood and corrected him, so he just went along rather than make a big deal of it.

Yes, but the bigot element in the right wing isn't going to read it in context. They're going to misrepresent it and do everything they can to keep it alive. Stephanopolis just gave them a gift.
posted by homunculus at 5:53 PM on September 7, 2008


Here's something I've been confused about for a while now, given all the religion and economy threads.

If a person is both poor and religious (as many people are), do we like them or not?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 5:55 PM on September 7, 2008


If a person is both poor and religious (as many people are), do we like them or not?

I don't know who you mean by "we." Given your past commenting history, I'm going to go ahead and assume you mean "we Republicans," in which case the answer is, no, we Republicans hate them, as we hate all poor people, but we will still suck up to their religious beliefs in order to seize their votes, all the while ignoring the very real needs represented by their poverty.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:01 PM on September 7, 2008 [29 favorites]


Well, I flagged your post, Steve, as "noise", but of course being a good troll I have to answer it.

The religious people we're talking about here have an all encompassing agenda of what I consider Teh Stupid.

Against the availability of abortion to anyone, even RU-486.

"Anti-Darwinism" in schools. Hell, pro teacher-led prayer in public schools.

Anti-Gay rights like recognized civil unions for homosexual life partners.

Millenialist-inspired support for fucking up the middle east more than it is already.

To the extent anyone -- rich or poor -- is voting in people like Bush/Cheney, McCain/Palin, etc who are pushing this agenda, I "don't like" them and wish they would fuck off.

HTH.
posted by troy at 6:06 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Millenialist-inspired support for fucking up the middle east more than it is already.

and it's worth mentioning that the main reason the Middle east is fucked up to begin with is because of a different batch of religious fanatics. and oil.
posted by jonmc at 6:13 PM on September 7, 2008


Yeah, it's a really interesting article. People should read it -- especially everyone who was part of the various abortion sidetracks on the Palin thread. (Instead of, you know, just shooting the shit randomly, which is what seems to be going on in this thread.)

Obviously, the Palin choice happened just as they were going to press, and they stuck in a short paragraph about it at the last minute. But clearly the Palin choice changes the whole game discussed in the article. I mean, most of the piece is about how much fundamentalist Christians distrust McCain. I came away with the feeling that the Palin choice has almost nothing to do with winning over women, Hillary voters, "small town" voters, getting a hot young face on the ticket or anything else. It was all about getting the pro-life vote.

In that context, Douglas Kmiec--the pro-life Catholic Republican legal scholar supporting Obama--is a fascinating figure. He has an intellectually compelling argument about how it's consistent to be strictly, completely against abortion and still believe Obama is the better choice of the two:

There is a widespread misconception that overturning Roe is the only way to be pro-life. In fact, overturning Roe simply returns the matter to the states, which in their individual legislative determinations could then be entirely pro-abortion. I doubt that many of our non-legally-trained pro-life friends fully grasp the limited effect of overturning Roe.

Secondly, pundits like to toss about the notion that the future of Roe depends on one vote, the mythical fifth vote to overturn the decision. There are serious problems with this assumption: first, Republicans have failed to achieve reversal in the five previous times they asked the court for it; and second, it is far from certain that only one additional vote is needed to reverse the decision in light of the principles of stare decisis by which a decided case ought not to be disturbed. Only Justices Thomas and Scalia have written and joined dissenting opinions suggesting the appropriateness of overturning Roe.

So given those views, the better question is how could a Catholic not support Barack Obama?

Senator Obama’s articulated concerns with the payment of a living wage, access to health care, stabilizing the market for shelter, special attention to the needs of the disadvantaged and the importance of community are all part of the church’s social justice mission.

posted by neroli at 6:14 PM on September 7, 2008 [10 favorites]


obama is an expert vote farmer. He will come up with something to try to get as many votes possible from any demographic. But he can only flip flop on issues and talk long and articulate about nothing for so long before it becomes obvious his only agenda is a CFR one of dissolving the United States no matter the promises. He can only promise so much before it becomes obvious he intends slavedom for the American population to his puppet masters. Be it free room and board, health care, what ever socialist gifts just like a monkey in a zoo trading freedom for security.

Can someone explain this to me, in English?
posted by maxwelton at 6:17 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ultimately it doesn't matter if Democrats can get a foothold on the religious vote. They need candidates who talk to voters as voters wish and enjoy being talked to - nobody would consider Bill Clinton a "religious candidate" or that he had evangelical votes sewed up, but he had folksy charm and people liked that. Likewise, Brian Schweitzer will probably be President in 2012 and it will have nothing to do with religion but everything to do with vernacular.
posted by billysumday at 6:19 PM on September 7, 2008


Obama today made it quite clear that his muslim faith should not be questioned. George S. made a feeble attempt to correct him but to see it live on TV was a gem. Without a telepropter, Mr. B. Hussen Obama struggles.

But he can only flip flop on issues and talk long and articulate about nothing for so long before it becomes obvious his only agenda is a CFR one of dissolving the United States no matter the promises. He can only promise so much before it becomes obvious he intends slavedom for the American population to his puppet masters. Be it free room and board, health care, what ever socialist gifts just like a monkey in a zoo trading freedom for security.

It's been a long time since I have wished so fervently for an intelligence test of some kind as part of the Metafilter sign-up process.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:20 PM on September 7, 2008 [10 favorites]


[sigh]
posted by neroli at 6:20 PM on September 7, 2008


Can someone explain this to me, in English?

I think it was meant to be gibberish. Like pre-trolling any actual trolls. A troll vaccine.
posted by billysumday at 6:20 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America writes "If a person is both poor and religious (as many people are), do we like them or not?"

Poverty causes ignorance, which leads to superstition and religion. We have sympathy for them.
posted by mullingitover at 6:25 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


maxwelton:

Best I can discern from it, it means, roughly, that Obama is a democrat, and a very viable democratic candidate, and that he's very good at public speaking, and because he is a democrat, he is evil, you see. The evil in this case comes from his dedication to universal health care, among other things, but which in this case of course is thought of as "socialized health care." The word "socialized," leads one to "socialism," which leads to communism, which is all about giving up individual freedoms for the security of the community. You know, just like socialized medicine did to our poor enslaved brothers and sisters north of the "Maple Curtain."

I would add in the context that maybe the Michelle Malkin call-out has been moving some of her readers over here, which would explain a few of the comments in this thread, but I see that godseyeview has been a member since 2004, and just has never said much.
posted by Navelgazer at 6:26 PM on September 7, 2008 [3 favorites]


FWIW, everyone I've discussed the Palin nomination with, including hardcore Republicans, see her nomination for what it is - a cynical, desperate, ill-conceived ploy.

She will get some more of the wingnut contingent to vote when they might have sat this one out, and she might get some of the "Reagan Democrat" crowd, but independents and most women are not impressed.

The Republican Party is dying. It doesn't matter how revved-up Palin gets the base, without significant numbers of independents moving right, McCain doesn't stand a chance.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:28 PM on September 7, 2008


So, like I said, it's a good article.

But it's very long. And the FPP is pretty crappy. So nobody's talking about it.

This thread should die.
posted by neroli at 6:28 PM on September 7, 2008


godseyeview writes "He can only promise so much before it becomes obvious he intends slavedom for the American population to his puppet masters. Be it free room and board, health care, what ever socialist gifts just like a monkey in a zoo trading freedom for security."

The reptilians! I knew it! Tell me, what are your thoughts on timecube?
posted by mullingitover at 6:28 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'd just like to point out that godseyeview has a tremendously entertaining posting history full of gems like the above.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:34 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Can someone explain this to me, in English?

The calling Obama a "socialist monkey" part or the "vote farmer" part?

The former is obviously a barely veiled ignorant racist slur the latter is a not so subtle admission he doesn't understand what politicians do during these things we call elections.

I think LGF was giving away 25% off coupons for 'moron spamming" MeFi today.
posted by tkchrist at 6:36 PM on September 7, 2008 [3 favorites]


I echo the peeve that, given the way in which Americans are overwhelmingly religious, it's absurd to suggest that the Democratic party doesn't have the religious vote. The non-religious vote in the US is, what, 2%? 3%? Religious Americans whose main interest in life isn't hating gays or whatever really ought to push back on that one.

Running the guy who's wife spent years trying to get popular music censored, with a Likudnik social conservative who is currently stumping for the Republicans, didn't win the election in 2000. Running an actual, decorated, veteran didn't do it in 2004.

I fail to see how cosying up to the core Republican voting base will make the Democratic party any more successful now than it did then.

The former pair did, however, cost a butt-load of left-wing votes in 2000.
posted by rodgerd at 6:43 PM on September 7, 2008


only one additional vote is needed to reverse the decision in light of the principles of stare decisis by which a decided case ought not to be disturbed

Lawrence (2003) tossed out Bowers (1986):

"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled."

Whatever 5 members of the court say is law, is law. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito form the hard-right conservative core (which also happens to be conservative Catholic). Kennedy is Catholic but more of Kmiec type, able to find the middle-ground, non-extremist position that elude Scalia (and Thomas to some extent).
posted by troy at 6:46 PM on September 7, 2008


in this age of sound-bite-as-truth

Danged if I didn't hear that Palin gal say she was a dog with lipstick. Swear that's what she said.
posted by binturong at 6:47 PM on September 7, 2008 [4 favorites]


It is amusing that the Washington Times is the paper to print the Obama slip. And who owns the paper? convicted felon, Rev Moon, founding "god" of the Unification Church, the reincarnation he claims of Jesus...

Why obama is in trouble: subtract minority votes for the past elections since Nixon, and you will see that when you count whites only votes, the Dems always lose. they can win ONLY if they get a substantial black turnout and vote, and a lot of Hispanic votes tossed in. But the GOP has found ways in various states to deprive blacks of voting rights.

The social conservatives of course will vote GOP; the fiscal conservatives--having seen Bush blow what they stood for--will vote Republican simply because they are unable to vote for the Dems.

While Palin is polling Hillary is , well, waiting to see what her chances are should the candidate she says she supports loses, so Obama now has to go after her--that is a VP's job, and other spokes people.
posted by Postroad at 6:50 PM on September 7, 2008


After reading Bob Altermeyer's book "The Authoritarians", I see US politics in an entirely different way. Highly recommended.

godseyeview's post favorited as funny.
posted by anthill at 6:53 PM on September 7, 2008


I'm an atheist before I'm a democrat. I quite frankly could care less if the Democratic party ever learns to get "the religious vote". I'd prefer that they didn't. I'd prefer we ran candidates who gave full throated condemnations of the very concept of religion and stopped pandering to idiots. I'd prefer that we attack the tax base of these churches and publicly shame the charlatans that run them, to make these people regret ever getting involved in politics from the pulpit in the first place. People should be absolutely fucking embarrassed to bring up religion in the context of politics and be called out as the mouth-breathing yokels that they are.

I'm willing to compromise just this once, because 4 years of Republican rule would be an absolute fucking disaster, but we shouldn't be trying to come to a political accommodation with these people, we should be trying to find a way to their political destruction.
posted by empath at 6:55 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


Given your past commenting history, I'm going to go ahead and assume you mean "we Republicans"

No, I meant "we Mefites." I'll never be a Republican, because I'll never forgive them for the Iraq war, among other things.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:55 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


The reptilians! I knew it! Tell me, what are your thoughts on timecube?

I think it was meant to be gibberish. Like pre-trolling any actual trolls. A troll vaccine.

The calling Obama a "socialist monkey" part or the "vote farmer" part?

The former is obviously a barely veiled ignorant racist slur the latter is a not so subtle admission he doesn't understand what politicians do during these things we call elections.


Amazing how the mind of double-think programmable cattle shuts down when truth is presented before them. Its entertaining watching Goyim rationalize themselves. The end result is sad however when entire populations become brain dead servants of prison doctrines such as the youth population's of china ignorance of the Tiananmen square incident much like the ignorant American youth population's ignorance of liberty, freedom, free trade, and self determination of America's founding fathers. OBAMABOTs would do well to learn about the maniac Red Guard and the genocidal result of the socialist dream during the height of the Soviet Era. And lastly since this is a religious topic. According to Prophecy the Messiah which the Goyim worship will reveil himself as the Anti-Christ plunging the remanence of the free world into a Satanic totalitarian one world government headed by an unaccountable extension of the UN bringing depths of exploitation and inhumane barbarity upon mankind for a millennium.
posted by godseyeview at 6:59 PM on September 7, 2008 [4 favorites]


FWIW, everyone I've discussed the Palin nomination with, including hardcore Republicans, see her nomination for what it is - a cynical, desperate, ill-conceived ploy.

My son is a Republican and a Christian and is choosing not to vote for McCain for exactly that reason. My son likes Palin but thinks that McCain chose her for his own cynical reasons. He'll be writing in a name....I jokingly told him if Obama wins it's his fault.
posted by konolia at 6:59 PM on September 7, 2008


According to Prophecy the Messiah which the Goyim worship will reveil himself as the Anti-Christ plunging the remanence of the free world into a Satanic totalitarian one world government headed by an unaccountable extension of the UN bringing depths of exploitation and inhumane barbarity upon mankind for a millennium.

But that's just nitpicking, isn't it?
posted by ColdChef at 7:02 PM on September 7, 2008 [15 favorites]


I know most liberals prefer to ignore the fact, but history is history even when one has his haead in the sand.

From Geaorge Mason University...
The Racist History of the Democratic Party

Face it. It is YOUR history too!
posted by shockingbluamp at 7:05 PM on September 7, 2008


the Messiah which the Goyim worship will reveil himself as the Anti-Christ plunging the remanence of the free world into a Satanic totalitarian one world government headed by an unaccountable extension of the UN bringing depths of exploitation and inhumane barbarity upon mankind for a millennium.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:05 PM on September 7, 2008 [3 favorites]


The Racist History of the Democratic Party

Let's all read this and forget about The Racist Present of the Republican Party, okay?
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:07 PM on September 7, 2008 [4 favorites]


^ flagged as derail
posted by troy at 7:09 PM on September 7, 2008


See, this is exactly what I fucking mean.

How can a party that intends to govern based on reason possibly accommodate with people who are completely bat shit crazy? Now, granted, this guy is an extreme case, but even 'reasonable' Christians, if they insist on voting based on their religious beliefs, are voting irrationally, almost by definition. Stop trying to find common ground with crazy people. Just try to minimize the amount of damage they can do.
posted by empath at 7:10 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'm an atheist before I'm a democrat.
posted by empath at 9:55 PM on September 7


I'm agnostic and I think we should be building bridges with liberal Christians. The problem is not religion. The problem is people who can't bear to see anybody else have a different religion than they do.

According to Prophecy the Messiah which the Goyim worship will reveil himself as the Anti-Christ plunging the remanence of the free world into a Satanic totalitarian one world government headed by an unaccountable extension of the UN bringing depths of exploitation and inhumane barbarity upon mankind for a millennium.
posted by godseyeview at 9:59 PM on September 7


I'm 100% certain the Bible never mentions the United Nations. Amongst other problems with that sentence.
posted by joannemerriam at 7:11 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


meh, I had the whole a tag written out, don't know what happened to the link there (it was supposed to go back up to godseye's crazy rant above)
posted by empath at 7:11 PM on September 7, 2008


The reason Republicans need to "use" religion in the first place is because they naturally lack votes, because they really only represent those who make all the profit and need lower taxes and greater access to government with their money. Therefore they reach down the economic ladder with persuasive religious talk, obsessing on morality as their currency, pushing issues related to voter patience and pacification. It's an old elitist trick, and the main reason religion exists organizationally in the world.

The party who uses religion does so as frauds for lack of a platform that expresses a reason to vote. For liberals to compete for religious voters is proof they are useless, and they would be seen as awkward posers compared to the real charlatans. Liberals never need to change their views that religion is a private affair, separate from state, as long as they represent the interests of more people in actual circumstances. If they would quit taxing subsistence earners who make no profit in life yet, they would quit losing elections, because the Republican mantra of lower taxes would never appeal to those voters.
posted by Brian B. at 7:16 PM on September 7, 2008


This thread's off to a nice start.
posted by cj_ at 7:17 PM on September 7, 2008


Face it. It is YOUR history too!

You do realize that you're communicating with people are pretty aware of political history, don't you? I mean, you're not bringing this down from the mountain. It is also pretty ancient history, kind of like the party of Lincoln now being the one to pander to racist sentiments (Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms & the like are more recent adherents to segregationist tendencies and they were, if I'm not mistaken, Republicans; ahem).
posted by Mental Wimp at 7:21 PM on September 7, 2008


Stop trying to find common ground with crazy people. Just try to minimize the amount of damage they can do.

The person manning the barricade on this is Justice Stevens, the Ford-appointee and technically old enough to be McCain's father, believe it or not.

We've had a pretty good run with the damage control, but at some point should things go south this nation may in fact become more Federalist in nature, where what were Federal-level protections like access to abortion become state-level.

Maybe the flipside of this will be stuff like the Feds losing the ability to nullify "Medical Marijuana" laws, and the liberal states receiving an influx of political refugess.

This would be a bad thing for the nation, but so it goes, ya know?
posted by troy at 7:23 PM on September 7, 2008


Every time I think Americans can't get any stupider, y'all manage to squeeze under the bar yet again.

The next couple of months are gonna be fun a fucking nightmare.
posted by you just lost the game at 7:30 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


shockingbluamp: From Geaorge Mason University...


From an editorial written by Reverend Wayne Perriman which was posted on the History News Network website.

From in the about us of the HNN...

George Mason University and HNN

History News Network (HNN) operates independently of George Mason University. The views expressed are those of its authors and editors and not GMU or the Center for History and New Media. The website resides on GMU's server.

...

Please do not attempt to mislead readers or purposely try to add false credibility to your posts. I find it to be an insult to my intelligence, and an indication of a lack of intelligence from you.

Also, in your previous link, a quote from the article from a Barack Obama campaign manager said that he was not surprised that the Washington Times was the only news outlet pursuing the story. This truly is not surprising as the Washington Times is widely observed to have conservative political leanings to the point where it is valid to question the paper's credibility.

Basically keep your poorly backed up bullshit opinions to yourself until you have something intelligent to contribute or a valid substantiated argument to present.
posted by clearly at 7:30 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


It would be nice if we could all of us in the U.S. just try being decent. Forget who is red or blue and just fucking act decent towards each other. Don't act like you don't know how to be decent. But what it really comes down to is not everyone has a heart, and so we will never really know who does. We won't ever know if someone is decent because they feel a desire to be, or because it just looks right to everyone else. The thing I hate the most watching these elections go forward is the feeling that I'm seeing people speaking of good things, that would kill a puppy with a hammer if it ment they could be king.
posted by nola at 7:30 PM on September 7, 2008 [4 favorites]


I see no useful purpose served by telling us--as though we were not aware of it--that the Democratic party has a racist past. Why not? the entire nation had this. But it was Truman who integrated the armed services; Johnson who brought about civil rights...What the GOP did was appoint Thomas, a Black, because he was conservative. If we are to live in the past, then recall that the Supreme Court ruled at one time that separate but equal schools was within the law.

The GOP is a party of virtually all white folks, supporting social conservatism, and that includes anti-gay, anti-abortion, school vouchers, and on and on.

And who knew that Michelle Obama had Jewish blood in her background?

http://www.forward.com/articles/14121/
posted by Postroad at 7:31 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Amazing how the mind of double-think programmable cattle shuts down when truth is presented before them....

SIDEBAR THIS COMMENT
posted by cmonkey at 7:34 PM on September 7, 2008 [3 favorites]


No, I meant "we Mefites."

Well, that's an easier question to answer, since MeFi has, what, 70,000 members? The answer is: There is no official MetaFilter position on religion and poverty, unless you are trying to paint a vast and diverse community as being some sort of single-minded, Borg-like entity.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:34 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm seeing people speaking of good things, that would kill a puppy with a hammer if it ment they could be king.

poor man wanna be rich/rich man wanna be king/and a king ain't satisfied till he rules everything...
posted by jonmc at 7:40 PM on September 7, 2008


Amazing how the mind of double-think programmable cattle shuts down when truth is presented before them. Its entertaining watching Goyim rationalize themselves [...]

But Stuart, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE QUEERS ARE DOING TO THE SOIL?
posted by 5MeoCMP at 7:42 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


Here is the origin of the Republicans and the Christian Right ransacking religion to take the White House.

God in the White House

The Christian Right is going to ALWAYS vote Republican. So, like, whatever.

The Christian Left has finally gotten pissed off enough in large enough numbers this year. I have never seen my brothers and sisters so riled up, and so intent on getting Obama elected.

Tony Campolo helped to create Obama's platform, Jim Wallis (the leader of Sojourners) is on a roll, but the press is like, "There is a Christian Left?" I just want them to FINALLY get Wallis and Dobson in the same room and on camera so Dobson's head would blow up with rage.

Father, forgive me that I want that.
posted by jeanmari at 7:44 PM on September 7, 2008


obama is an expert vote farmer. He will come up with something to try to get as many votes possible from any demographic. But he can only flip flop on issues and talk long and articulate about nothing for so long before it becomes obvious his only agenda is a CFR one of dissolving the United States no matter the promises. He can only promise so much before it becomes obvious he intends slavedom for the American population to his puppet masters. Be it free room and board, health care, what ever socialist gifts just like a monkey in a zoo trading freedom for security.

THAT WAS FUCKING AWESOME
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:45 PM on September 7, 2008 [5 favorites]


they can win ONLY if they get a substantial black turnout and vote

I agree, and I'm hoping it's going to be huge. In 2004, the election (Ohio) may have been determined by how many votes in poor districts were reduced by direct or indirect suppression.

I can only hope that a lot of the people who didn't want to wait 8 hours in line in 2004 are going to wait 8 hours in line in 2008. I can only hope the polls stay open long enough.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:47 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


A lawsuit filed by the young woman was quietly settled, and nondisclosure agreements were signed by all parties.

...which somebody then obviously violated.
posted by spock at 7:48 PM on September 7, 2008


Amazing how the mind of double-think programmable cattle shuts down when truth is presented before them. Its entertaining watching Goyim rationalize themselves. The end result is sad however when entire populations become brain dead servants of prison doctrines such as the youth population's of china ignorance of the Tiananmen square incident much like the ignorant American youth population's ignorance of liberty, freedom, free trade, and self determination of America's founding fathers. OBAMABOTs would do well to learn about the maniac Red Guard and the genocidal result of the socialist dream during the height of the Soviet Era. And lastly since this is a religious topic. According to Prophecy the Messiah which the Goyim worship will reveil himself as the Anti-Christ plunging the remanence of the free world into a Satanic totalitarian one world government headed by an unaccountable extension of the UN bringing depths of exploitation and inhumane barbarity upon mankind for a millennium.

OMG IN CASE OF RAPTURE PLEASE SIDEBAR TO METAFILTER
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:48 PM on September 7, 2008


i'd like to think godseyeview is a wacky sockpuppet, but i think he or she is furreal.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:49 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Is this how right-wingers think? Really? Because I'm surprised they can get anything done in a day with all that crazy bullshit running through their heads.
posted by puke & cry at 7:50 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]




It will be interesting to watch the media try to spin this election as close or interesting, because it is clearly going to be a freaking landslide. The usual rules do not apply because the recently red states of the south will be going blue this November. The only states McCain is going to win are the central row of states (ND to TX), a few of the Great Lakes states, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona.
posted by spock at 7:56 PM on September 7, 2008


Amazing how the mind of double-think programmable cattle shuts down when truth is presented before them. Its entertaining watching Goyim rationalize themselves. The end result is sad however when entire populations become brain dead servants of prison doctrines such as the youth population's of china ignorance of the Tiananmen square incident much like the ignorant American youth population's ignorance of liberty, freedom, free trade, and self determination of America's founding fathers. OBAMABOTs would do well to learn about the maniac Red Guard and the genocidal result of the socialist dream during the height of the Soviet Era. And lastly since this is a religious topic. According to Prophecy the Messiah which the Goyim worship will reveil himself as the Anti-Christ plunging the remanence of the free world into a Satanic totalitarian one world government headed by an unaccountable extension of the UN bringing depths of exploitation and inhumane barbarity upon mankind for a millennium.
posted by godseyeview at 6:59 PM on September 7


I totally agree.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:56 PM on September 7, 2008


I'd prefer we ran candidates who gave full throated condemnations of the very concept of religion and stopped pandering to idiots. I'd prefer that we attack the tax base of these churches and publicly shame the charlatans that run them, to make these people regret ever getting involved in politics from the pulpit in the first place. People should be absolutely fucking embarrassed to bring up religion in the context of politics and be called out as the mouth-breathing yokels that they are.

... but even 'reasonable' Christians, if they insist on voting based on their religious beliefs, are voting irrationally, almost by definition. Stop trying to find common ground with crazy people.


I seriously hope you're writing in hyperbole here. Church tax law reform, campaign finance reform, clearer lines between church and state - definitely. But are you honestly suggesting that politicians should condemn religion itself? "The very concept"? Why? What would be the purpose of this? Religion itself does not cause fascists to try and take over, it's one of many reasons fascists use to try and take over. People have also fought injustice, protested war, gone into public service, and have voted progressively because of their faiths. Why does Religion the thing need to be crapped on?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:57 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


Goyim? The unwashed masses i guess? I guess he is talking about me then.
posted by nola at 7:59 PM on September 7, 2008


The article seems to ... not address regional very well. Many Mexicans, for instance, are Catholic and I don't see where they are like the Catholics in this story - as Catholics. They are conservative about some issue, but no more or less than other non-pope bible people.

I suspect that Christ-lovers are pretty well distributed on both sides.

Some of the people in my family are genuinely in with Jeebus. It appears to me that Obama is, in fact, genuinely in Jeebus (although clear on separations). When my own sainted mother was enraged about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, I suggested that she read any one of his three books to see to what sort of Christianity was contained therein. She declined. Confronted with considerable, albeit subjective, evidence on the sincerity of the candidates respective beliefs, and considerable factual evidence on the candidates time in the trenches of doing for others (or not), my family has brushed this aside without a second thought. McCain represents the traditional Christian values, in the same way, I guess, a man-hating, fundamentally lesbian Victoria's Secret model represents the traditional male fantasy.

At some point, I am going to drink too much, and solicit opinions on the likely vote of my late grandmother, who worshipped Jimmy Carter almost as a second god. (She did believe in jeebus, to the grape juice communion "wine" yet during the prolonged and unpleasant end of her life, she did not discuss her pending trip to and our eventual meeting in heaven with me or the other family heathens - clear on separation, freedom of and from, etc.)

I do think, however, that my man is doing a great job with republicans - many of whom are unnerved by speaking and tongues and handling snakes. Though my workplace is very conservative, people feel free to say, in hallways and elevators, that they are voting Dem this year because of Obama. These are mostly people who were kind of raised in a church, got married in a church, and then didn't think about religion again until they had children of a certain age. (Unless they are Muslim, Hindi, or whathaveyou, in which case change the name of the building.)

Not that it means anything, but today I had a drink with a rabid Hillary Harridan who is psyched about Palin - an accomplished women of otherwise sterling liberal bona-fides, although Christian. She promised not to vote McCain, but slippage possible.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 8:07 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


People I know like to say that GWB stole the election, and I agree that he probably did but I'm always shocked that about 1/2 the population put him within reaching distance of it.

It also amazes me that all the disgruntled republicans and independents that now disapprove of GWB are buying this bio of Palin as a reformer while she's spouting the same load of crap that GWB spouted. Ooooo, look! a shiny new toy!

Please America, do something to stifle these dumb rubes.
posted by bonobothegreat at 8:08 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Why does Religion the thing need to be crapped on?

Because it's bullshit. And we shouldn't be encouraging people to believe in nonsense. The less respect we pay it in the public sphere the better. These people should be LAUGHED AT. And here we are, sweating over whether we're pandering to them enough.

If the Democratic party ran on a genuinely progressive, populist platform, this religion bullshit wouldn't matter. Democrats aren't REALLY offering a different foreign policy, they aren't really offering a vastly different economic policy. So they vote on the bullshit issues where they really DO differ -- Abortion, Guns, God and Gays. Of course, the Democrat solution isn't to offer a genuinely different policy, it's just to pander on Abortion, Guns, God and Gays and erase any remaining differences between the parties.

Fuck that. Fix the tax code, stop starting fucking wars, and fix the health care system, and then nobody will give a fuck what your position on teaching evolution in schools is.

I'm supporting them anyway, but only because the other choice is SO MUCH WORSE.
posted by empath at 8:17 PM on September 7, 2008 [7 favorites]


joannemerriam: The problem is not religion. The problem is people who can't bear to see anybody else have a different religion than they do.

I very much agree with this. I'm an agnostic but I guess kind of bokononist about it. As long as religious people allow others to do as they please it does not hurt me. I think SCIENCE! can survive someone dealing with death by believing in an afterlife.

It seems extraordinarily short sighted to throw the open-minded-do-as-you-will-religious baby out with the me-me-me-teach-creationism-in-schools bathwater.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:28 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


amazing how the mind of double-think programmable cattle &c.

One case where the lobotomy seems to have taken beautifully.
posted by sixswitch at 8:30 PM on September 7, 2008


Fix the tax code

But their people keep lying and saying the Democrats will raise their taxes. Over and over again. So they believe it, because that's what their people say.

stop starting fucking wars

But their people tell them the wars are necessary, for their own good, and as we've seen with konolia in that thread, they don't even need to understand why. As long as their people say the war is justified, they believe them.

fix the health care system

But their people keep telling them that's socialism. And we all know what socialism is, don't we? Communism. And we all know what communism is, don't we? People who hate Jesus.

There's a brick wall in the way; part of that wall is religion, but most of it is just complete fucking stupidity.
posted by Jimbob at 8:31 PM on September 7, 2008 [6 favorites]


So they vote on the bullshit issues where they really DO differ -- Abortion, Guns, God and Gays.

But again, religion is not the problem, policy is. Not all religious people oppose choice, gun control, and gay marriage. It does not help anyone or anything to make blanket condemnations of the very concept of Religion itself, encompassing all faiths and denominations. It's absurd. Is the religious person who votes progressively just as "irrational" to you as the religious person who votes neo-con, just as deserving of scorn? If you want as absolute a separation of church and state as can be mustered, great, I'm all for it. But I can't really see the purpose of some scattergun "full-throated" approach against merely believing in a deity.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:33 PM on September 7, 2008 [4 favorites]


But their people tell them the wars are necessary, for their own good, and as we've seen with konolia in that thread, they don't even need to understand why. As long as their people say the war is justified, they believe them.

It doesn't help that democrats have started and encouraged as many bullshit wars as republicans. If one party is saying, hey lets fight some more in Iraq, and the other is saying hey, Iraq is bullshit, we really need to be fighting in Afganistan --- what kind of choice is that?
posted by empath at 8:35 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


A choice between fighting two wars and fighting one? Shitty choice, but still an important one to make correctly.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:37 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Because it's bullshit. And we shouldn't be encouraging people to believe in nonsense. The less respect we pay it in the public sphere the better. These people should be LAUGHED AT.
posted by empath at 11:17 PM on September 7


Yeah, laughing at something like 95% of the population, that'll win you elections.

It seems extraordinarily short sighted to throw the open-minded-do-as-you-will-religious baby out with the me-me-me-teach-creationism-in-schools bathwater.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:28 PM on September 7


Quoted for truth.
posted by joannemerriam at 8:38 PM on September 7, 2008


But their people keep telling them that's socialism. And we all know what socialism is, don't we? Communism. And we all know what communism is, don't we? People who hate Jesus.

Socialism is the destruction of the individual. If you got a liberal arts degree it certainly didn't teach you anything about the principles of Liberty. In your mind there's a brick wall in the way. That is part of the double-think wall of the communist religion, but most of it is just complete fucking stupidity.
posted by godseyeview at 8:38 PM on September 7, 2008


But I can't really see the purpose of some scattergun "full-throated" approach against merely believing in a deity.

I don't have any problem with 'believing in a diety', as long as they don't claim that diety has some opinions on public policy that they need to share with the rest of us.
posted by empath at 8:40 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


I know there's a stocks-trading technique in which one bets against the success of a company, ie. you make money if the company fails.

I am beginning to think a wise man would be betting against the USA these days.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:45 PM on September 7, 2008


godseyeview: " If you got a liberal arts degree it certainly didn't teach you anything about the principles of Liberty. In your mind there's a brick wall in the way. That is part of the double-think wall of the communist religion, but most of it is just complete fucking stupidity."

How do you know what my education taught me? The Jesuits fed me a steady stream of Enlightenment goodness. What's your idea of literature, Left Behind?

Dude, seriously, you sound like you need professional help. Not that you would anything except that the professional help was trying to brainwash you, but...seriously. You make Timecube look eminently reasonable.
posted by notsnot at 8:49 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]



Amazing how the mind of double-think programmable cattle shuts down when truth is presented before them. Its entertaining watching Goyim rationalize themselves. The end result is sad however when entire populations become brain dead servants of prison doctrines such as the youth population's of china ignorance of the Tiananmen square incident much like the ignorant American youth population's ignorance of liberty, freedom, free trade, and self determination of America's founding fathers. OBAMABOTs would do well to learn about the maniac Red Guard and the genocidal result of the socialist dream during the height of the Soviet Era. And lastly since this is a religious topic. According to Prophecy the Messiah which the Goyim worship will reveil himself as the Anti-Christ plunging the remanence of the free world into a Satanic totalitarian one world government headed by an unaccountable extension of the UN bringing depths of exploitation and inhumane barbarity upon mankind for a millennium.


Since godseyeview somehow decided not to call me out in this thread along with everyone else, I'll offer another translation:

"Navelgazer, I have no understanding of sarcasm or irony, and thus will take your previous comment as impetus to move along with the 'universal health care' = 'communism' canard which has been pummeled into my skull by radio and the other blogs I frequent more actively. Communism is godless, and as I've already shown, Obama is communist. Don't you remember the guy standing up to the tank in China? Of course you don't, because godless liberalism in America has forced you to forget that fascism is part and parcel with liberalism. Moreover, according to Scripture, the Antichrist will be all things to all people. As far as I understand it, this points to a black man who is somehow embraced by white America. We thought it was Tiger Woods ten years ago, but now we know it means Obama. And y'all are too ignorant and blinded to see what's coming!"

empath, I'm an atheist as well, and hate religion as any kind of institution, but we're talking about a grand majority of the electorate, who generally don't use their religion for evil, or really for much of anything other than personal faith. Can we back off a little bit?
posted by Navelgazer at 8:49 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yeah, laughing at something like 95% of the population, that'll win you elections.

It's suspect its more like 40% of the population, that are religious enough to vote entirely along religious lines. Watered-down 'mainstream' protestantism is not the problem, fundamentalists are. And there's nothing about fundamentalism that can't be cured with education, and by going after a church's tax exempt status if they get involved in politics.
posted by empath at 8:49 PM on September 7, 2008


Socialism is the destruction of the individual.

If socialism is the destruction of the individual, then what in "Bob's" name is religion, for crying out loud?
posted by Jimbob at 8:49 PM on September 7, 2008 [5 favorites]


Amazing how the mind of double-think programmable cattle shuts down when truth is presented before them. Its entertaining watching Goyim rationalize themselves. The end result is sad however when entire populations become brain dead servants of prison doctrines such as the youth population's of china ignorance of the Tiananmen square incident much like the ignorant American youth population's ignorance of liberty, freedom, free trade, and self determination of America's founding fathers. OBAMABOTs would do well to learn about the maniac Red Guard and the genocidal result of the socialist dream during the height of the Soviet Era. And lastly since this is a religious topic. According to Prophecy the Messiah which the Goyim worship will reveil himself as the Anti-Christ plunging the remanence of the free world into a Satanic totalitarian one world government headed by an unaccountable extension of the UN bringing depths of exploitation and inhumane barbarity upon mankind for a millennium.

Finally! Somebody has the guts to speak plain about this!
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:51 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


Godseyeview, please post more, your prose has the same pleasurable effect on my brain as a Hefty sack full of embalming fluid soaked rags.
posted by The Straightener at 8:52 PM on September 7, 2008 [6 favorites]


Socialism is the destruction of the individual.

And what is the other side of that coin? The individual is God?
posted by nola at 8:53 PM on September 7, 2008


Also, godseyeview, the U.N. is notoriously weak, as any one member may go against its wishes with nothing but sound and fury in Kip's Bay as a result. I don't think that's the One-World-Government you're imagining.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:54 PM on September 7, 2008


Navelgazer: If people aren't out there pushing the maximum possible position of 'no religion', then 'less religion' doesn't become appealingly moderate.
posted by empath at 8:54 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


My son is a Republican and a Christian and is choosing not to vote for McCain for exactly that reason. My son likes Palin but thinks that McCain chose her for his own cynical reasons. He'll be writing in a name....I jokingly told him if Obama wins it's his fault.
konolia, I'm glad you're here on this thread. While I'm not sure if it's completely on-topic, I've been curious about something ever since Palin's remarkable convention speech. When Bush was elected in 2000, I and many other members of my church supported him primarily because of the promise of 'compassionate conservatism.' The idea that local groups, charities, and volunteers could make a difference in their communities, and that empowering government officials was the Wrong Way To Solve Problems, resonated deeply.

Today, I'm struck by the fact that a man who decided to delay law school and work for a Catholic iner-city charity for three years -- the very model that we wanted to applaud in 2000 -- is openly mocked by conservative leaders specifically for doing those things. The party is explicitly attacking the very things that they said were fundamental American values just two elections ago.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, and I don't want to assume anything, but... I'm utterly, completely at a loss. How can this possibly be resolved? I don't understand.
posted by verb at 9:00 PM on September 7, 2008 [6 favorites]


> How can this possibly be resolved?

Irrationally.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:12 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


I and many other members of my church supported him primarily because of the promise of 'compassionate conservatism.' The idea that local groups, charities, and volunteers could make a difference in their communities...

And in this election cycle these folks are the ones considered "community organizers."

Weren't these the folks who Rudy ("noun/verb/9-11") Guiliani and Sarah Palin mocked at the RNC? Oh, yes, indeed they were! Oh how hypocritical. Excuse my French, but fuck 'em.

Rudy (now against "cosmopolitans" before his was for them -- i.e. his former NYC constituency) and Sarah do not represent the "small town values" they profess are so important in this election. Excuse my French once again , but fuck 'em.
posted by ericb at 9:20 PM on September 7, 2008


The party is explicitly attacking the very things that they said were fundamental American values just two elections ago...
...I'm utterly, completely at a loss. How can this possibly be resolved? I don't understand.


They lied, it's what they're good at.
posted by doctor_negative at 9:24 PM on September 7, 2008


but... I'm utterly, completely at a loss. How can this possibly be resolved? I don't understand.

verb -- isn't the resolution the most obvious one? Bush's promise was plainly a lie. It was said only to get votes and never intended to be put into practice. Why do you find that puzzling? The distain now expressed by leading repubs for "community organizers" is the naked truth and they're not afraid to say it now partly because the arrogance of having been in power so long makes them confident and because they think they have the religious vote secured.
posted by binturong at 9:37 PM on September 7, 2008


Godseyeview, please post more, your prose has the same pleasurable effect on my brain as a Hefty sack full of embalming fluid soaked rags.

Socialism is the destruction of the individual.

And what is the other side of that coin? The individual is God?


The flip side is Libertarianism is the Manifestation of the individual.

How do you know what my education taught me? The Jesuits fed me a steady stream of Enlightenment goodness. What's your idea of literature, Left Behind?

If you educated yourself in the arts of Liberty you would know that history has shown from the Ancient city-states of Greece the writings of democracy in a free Republic within the writings of Plato about the Eon Ancient alien-seeded and technologically advanced civilizations and destruction of Atlantis. This same technology which created the pyramids which Moses stole from the Pharaohs, descended hybrid of the star gods. which is why they chased after the tribe after permitting them to leave. This tetragamaton(hebrew translation of the word GOD) technology, a star shaped tetrahedron is what parted the Nile. This Arc of the covenant was kept in the queens chamber of the great pyramids and is why the Nile was piped through it energies the water to grow crops in the rem anent cradle of civilization; which is why the desert engulfed Egypt after the Exodus. -To the Knights of the Templar's quest for that technology hidden from the perverts of religion the Vatican as the quest for holy grail. With the subsequent torture of the brotherhood during the inquisition causing them to become hide their identity as Freemasons. Your Founding Fathers were these brave men founding a Nation based on Liberty and the will of Individual Man. Why? because this technology can no longer be used since the great fall of Man during Atlantis as this technology is far too advanced for humanity's current state of consciousness as any attempt to use this technology would cause instant individual destruction as any evil intent will manifest itself. This is the nature of technology and consciousness. Just as you are now in the world of laptop computers and cell phones these things manifest in front of you because of the level of sentience of mankind of realities true nature.

If socialism is the destruction of the individual, then what in "Bob's" name is religion, for crying out loud?

Socialism the destruction of the individual to the collective is the destruction of consciousness. This is because you cannot deny you are part of the universe. The universe is recursive in that you have universes inside of every one of your atoms because each one contains a singularity. Likewise there is a singularity inside your heart which creates an auric, and electromagnetic field which creates your perspective on reality. A singularity is only a point of stillness just like an eye of a hurricane. That is why you have perception there. Just like there is a singularity at the center of the earth creating its gravity and magnetic field there is a porportionally larger singularity at the center of the sun. A black hole as you will. Same with the known universe. The universe is within a black hole. If you combine the total gravity within the universe light cannot escape from it. And that is why the children of the star gods were called as they were. Because that is how they traveled from one end of the galaxy to the other by traveling through singularities to other parts of reality. The old testament talks about the origins and properties of this technology and the new testament talks about the state of consciousness one must attain before such technology will be available again.
posted by godseyeview at 9:55 PM on September 7, 2008 [39 favorites]


This is wonderful stuff. Please continue blowing my mind.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:57 PM on September 7, 2008


Truly, we are all educated stupid. Thank you for opening the doors of perception, godseyeview.
posted by cmonkey at 10:01 PM on September 7, 2008


Aah, yes, now I get it!

Remember, kids, drugs don't take you any place you want to be.
posted by Jimbob at 10:06 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


*before he was for them*
posted by ericb at 10:08 PM on September 7, 2008


Holy shit, this just took an entertaining turn for the weird.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:10 PM on September 7, 2008


verb -- isn't the resolution the most obvious one? Bush's promise was plainly a lie. It was said only to get votes and never intended to be put into practice. Why do you find that puzzling? The distain now expressed by leading repubs for "community organizers" is the naked truth and they're not afraid to say it now partly because the arrogance of having been in power so long makes them confident and because they think they have the religious vote secured.
binturong, let me clarify -- I don't find this turnabout puzzling. I find the reaction to it puzzling. Actual community organizers in churches and religious circles supported Bush in no small part because he said that community groups, religious groups and charities could affect positive change. A politician going failing to follow through is nothing new, but now McCain and Palin openly mock the same ideas.

These religious conservatives with social consciences exist, and they're a profound force for good when they channel their energies. I was one of them, and I'm trying to figure out how the ones who stayed with the party internally process the experience of being pissed on while 37 million people watch on national television.
posted by verb at 10:14 PM on September 7, 2008


Also? I vote markov chainer.
posted by verb at 10:16 PM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]


Maybe it's some kind of genetic algorithm based AI. We should breed it with Metaman.
posted by Artw at 10:19 PM on September 7, 2008 [3 favorites]


They're talking about different things, verb.

What Bush meant with his talk about community groups was "Instead of the government doing it's job and caring for the welfare of citizens, we'll through some cash at some religious organizations so they can sorta do that work instead, while teaching people about Jesus / Xenu at the same time."

What they mean when they talk about Obama as a community organizer is "lazy liberal do-gooder".
posted by Jimbob at 10:20 PM on September 7, 2008


why do I always type "throw" as "through" on Metafilter?
posted by Jimbob at 10:21 PM on September 7, 2008


Whoa. I'll have whatever he's having, thanks. That's great shit, that is.

A quick question to be answered by someone who actually knows the answer: if McCain is elected and has Roe vs. Wade overturned, as he clearly will attempt, the question of abortion rights will return to the invididual states.

If such a thing does occur, which States can be expected to, in the long term, maintain a ban on abortion? (In the long term, because while several of the states were batshitinsane about creationism, when push came to shove they reverted back to sanity in the end.)
posted by five fresh fish at 10:23 PM on September 7, 2008


Another question worth thinking about would be what would be their follow-up act? Because you know they;re nopt going to be stopping with one thing.
posted by Artw at 10:26 PM on September 7, 2008


What about those of us who aren't goyim?
posted by cortex at 10:28 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


This is wonderful stuff. Please continue blowing my mind.

TELL me about it. Thank the sweet lord we've got some wack jobs back in the house because it's been a loooong time since I've seen a peep out of bevins or Paris Paramus and I was getting pretty tired of the big blue echo chamber.
posted by radiosig at 10:34 PM on September 7, 2008


actually, let me give something a shot:

bevins

bevins

BEVINS

...
posted by radiosig at 10:35 PM on September 7, 2008 [3 favorites]


The universe is within a black hole

Let's leave Obama's ethnicity out of this, s.v.p.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:37 PM on September 7, 2008


I was one of them, and I'm trying to figure out how the ones who stayed with the party internally process the experience of being pissed on while 37 million people watch on national television

I think it has to do with who Obama was "organizing", and to what ends. cf. the New Yorker parody cover.

"Compassionate Conservatism" is, charitably, about removing the disempowering and disincentizing footprint of big, centralized, bureaucratic, lazy, unresponsive, authoritarian, top-down, one-size-fits-all, substandard, impersonal, secularized, unionized government intervention in favor of community- (ie church-) based provision of social services.
posted by troy at 10:39 PM on September 7, 2008


the question of abortion rights will return to the invididual states.

actually Ashcroft sent in his JBTs into a grow-op not 5 miles away from me earlier this decade.

if abortion is murder and on the same shaky moral plane as legalized chattel slavery then the precedent is for the Feds to stop it with all means at their disposal.
posted by troy at 10:44 PM on September 7, 2008


This is wonderful stuff. Please continue blowing my mind.

There is much pain the world. The illuminated ones. The Illuminati. The worshipers of Lucifer talked about in the bible infiltrated freemasonary and set up the black lodges- Skull n Bones, Mankind had to learn about deception. Ring of power around the Rothschild. Goes like this, Nathan Rothschild lend money to mercenaries to start a bunch of wars in Europe. He hit it rich in the stock market after one of his customers fled his country after getting overran to pay his soldiers. They infiltrated freemasonary. The Vatican started doing business with the demon brothers, his sons which he gave instructions to on how to rule the world through war. Forbes started the opium wars drug trade with China stole Hong Kong. --This is personified today as the CIA world drug trade. They did this insider trading deal after Napoleon's defeat and bought the entire London Stock market for pennies on the dollar. They bought the bank of England so King George had to place unfair taxes on the American colonist and create the prison state of Australia because of FIAT currency. Fiat Currency was the reason why the Articles of Confederation had to be scrapped because of runaway inflation and is why the FOUNDING FATHERS made Gold and Silver legal tender. The demon brothers bought Reuters. Started researching mass mind control technology. They set up the federal reserve which counterfeits money and the irs to make you debt slave GOYIM. Owned all Education. Started big Government to OWN you OWN >< NWO To destroy national sovereignty to an unaccountable mysterious Global World Government made up of the Rothschild's various banks. THE WORLD BANK, IMF, All Central Banks. The universe is a fractal. We are in a waveform right now. It's gonna come to a particle at 2012. The end of the Mayan Calendar which the sons of Tetragamaton is the deadline to pass the event horizon. If you take the microchip Satan will OWN YOU. We had to learn about corruption in order to have free energy from the zero point vacuum. There is so much energy in the vacuum that civilization will instantly destroy itself. And that kind of power can be attained on a personal device level. Tesla and many other zero point engineers were on the edge of this. There is still time according to one of the crop circles but that was a few years ago.
posted by godseyeview at 10:49 PM on September 7, 2008 [8 favorites]


It's amazing. godseyeview is like our own little timecube. Please, tell us more. Do you have a newsletter we can subscribe to?
posted by MythMaker at 10:54 PM on September 7, 2008


It's amazing. godseyeview is like our own little timecube. Please, tell us more. Do you have a newsletter we can subscribe to?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4430543376785758889

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6151699791256390335
http://www.niburu.nl/index.php?articleID=18715
posted by godseyeview at 10:58 PM on September 7, 2008


ZenMasterThis said: I believe in god, but I don't believe in religion. Who should I vote for?

Which reminded me of this:

I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-Ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in mantra
I don't believe in gita
I don't believe in yoga
I don't believe in kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles --
I just believe in me


- from John Lennon's "God"
posted by amyms at 11:01 PM on September 7, 2008


Joe Bageant weighs in on the Redneck/Religion/Palin relationship.
posted by telstar at 11:06 PM on September 7, 2008


Whoa.
posted by louche mustachio at 11:10 PM on September 7, 2008


godseyeview writes "According to Prophecy the Messiah which the Goyim worship will reveil himself as the Anti-Christ plunging the remanence of the free world into a Satanic totalitarian one world government headed by an unaccountable extension of the UN bringing depths of exploitation and inhumane barbarity upon mankind for a millennium."

Well, we don't exactly *worship* the man. He's really a hood ornament for the event. While I agree that the borg is pretty unaccountable, they started the whole thing and nobody else wants the job. And it's only a week. It might seem like a whole millenium, but then the nitrous and the bacon wears off and before you know it they're burning the temple and everyone is packing up their camp.
posted by mullingitover at 11:17 PM on September 7, 2008


verb, I'm curious...and this isn't meant to single you out. Voting for GWB in 2000 is kinda understandable. But voting for him in 2004 cannot be understood at all. Did you or your fellows feel the same way? Surely after four years of bullshit it was time to run the evil out of DC?

I just can't get over the fact that if there are any historians around in 2104, they'll look at the election of 2004 completely at a loss for an explanation.
posted by maxwelton at 11:26 PM on September 7, 2008 [1 favorite]


This (starting at 4:20) says it all.
posted by mullingitover at 11:31 PM on September 7, 2008


Wait, if Rothschild is having "teh gay sex" with Napoleon while the CIA tapes it all, then that means Tesla is Satan?

Tunguska was a fall-to-temptation?
posted by porpoise at 12:11 AM on September 8, 2008


porpoise: exactly.
posted by telstar at 12:31 AM on September 8, 2008


Metafilter - The same pleasurable effect your brain as a Hefty sack full of embalming fluid soaked rags.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 1:23 AM on September 8, 2008


godseyeview's stuff is like the freaky hoodoo that Scientologists spew out when they're trying to brainwash a new victim. If I read too much of it for too long (with no 'sanity breaks'), I'd probably start shouting hysterically like Alan Johnston.

Then, y'all could plug me into the brain-dead Pro-Life Matrix and let me start spamming for Jesus.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:34 AM on September 8, 2008


I jokingly told him if Obama wins it's his fault.

This just makes me want Obama / Biden to win EVEN MORE.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:02 AM on September 8, 2008


Today, I'm struck by the fact that a man who decided to delay law school and work for a Catholic iner-city charity for three years -- the very model that we wanted to applaud in 2000 -- is openly mocked by conservative leaders specifically for doing those things. The party is explicitly attacking the very things that they said were fundamental American values just two elections ago.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, and I don't want to assume anything, but... I'm utterly, completely at a loss. How can this possibly be resolved? I don't understand.


It's easy, verb. He's black. Black community organisers are called BLACK PANTHERS. Sheesh. Read your history. Everyone knows he's a _____________ (fill in the blank with "baby killer", "secret muslim", "communist heathen", "anti-christ", "alien", "bigfoot", "Loch Ness Monster", "Chupacabra", "Yeti", "Michael Moore fan" or "liberal").
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:17 AM on September 8, 2008


(Ron)Paulite fantasizes then creams about Palin in office.
posted by telstar at 2:18 AM on September 8, 2008




"I'll be sending McCain fitness tapes and nutrigrain bars if he wins this election."

Classic! It's good to see that I'm not the only person who is terrified by the thought of Sarah Palin as VP... or working in Washington in any capacity (for that matter).
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:39 AM on September 8, 2008






(Ron)Paulite fantasizes then creams about Palin in office.

This Ron Paulite appears blissfully unaware that Palin's policy in Alaska was to increase taxes on an industry in order to redistribute the wealth equally among the people.
posted by Jimbob at 3:22 AM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oh, my. I have a family member who, literally, goes on like godseyeview.

I gave up attempting to reason with him after he claimed that we all lived in a Matrix-like construct, and so there was no basis of reality on which to build a debate.

But you go, godseyeview.

Keep the good news coming, brother!
posted by 5MeoCMP at 3:39 AM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


They say do not feedeth the troll, but whatever godseyeview feeds upon, I say give that fucker more.
posted by nudar at 4:04 AM on September 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


Anyone else notice any odd resemblances between godseyeview's theories and the plot of Stargate, the movie? Maybe he's a screenwriter looking to get attention?
posted by miss tea at 4:14 AM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


There's a fine line between "ribbing somebody who is making some wacky posts" and "mocking somebody with evident mental health issues".

I think we're on the wrong side of that line.
posted by Shepherd at 4:24 AM on September 8, 2008


Maybe he's a screenwriter looking to get attention?

He's been out of work ever since his last film Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000 flopped.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:27 AM on September 8, 2008


So Sheperd, you're saying godseyeview evidently has health issues based on what he believes?

Hmm, I think I choose to rib, thank you.
posted by nudar at 4:33 AM on September 8, 2008


mental health issues, rather.
posted by nudar at 4:33 AM on September 8, 2008


I'm just shocked that the medical marvel of Alex Jones and Erich von Däniken having a lovechild didn't make it into the news.
posted by goo at 4:45 AM on September 8, 2008


verb, I'm curious...and this isn't meant to single you out. Voting for GWB in 2000 is kinda understandable. But voting for him in 2004 cannot be understood at all. Did you or your fellows feel the same way? Surely after four years of bullshit it was time to run the evil out of DC?
Well, in my case, yeah. I got the water-in-the-face around 2002 or so, in the leadup to the invasion.
posted by verb at 4:49 AM on September 8, 2008


Look, it's not the religion that is the root of the "i know what's good for you" attitude of today's republicans. It's authoritarianism, and it tends to manifest in whatever's handy and socially acceptable for a given society. If we lived in a communist people's republic, the authoritarians would all join up as loyal Party members. Religion is just today's excuse, so don't be so hard on it.
posted by anthill at 6:03 AM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


godseyeview: "The end of the Mayan Calendar which the sons of Tetragamaton is the deadline to pass the event horizon. If you take the microchip Satan will OWN YOU. We had to learn about corruption in order to have free energy from the zero point vacuum. There is so much energy in the vacuum that civilization will instantly destroy itself. And that kind of power can be attained on a personal device level. Tesla and many other zero point engineers were on the edge of this. There is still time according to one of the crop circles but that was a few years ago."

Absolute cleanliness is Godliness! Who else but God gave man Love that can spark mere dust to life! Poetry, uniting All-One! All brave! All life! Who else but God! "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Einstein, 1939, after Nazis & Commies united, proposed spacebombs that destroy all, unless we finally teach the Moral ABC's the real Rabbi Hillel taught Jesus to unite all in All-One-God-Faith. As teach astronomers Abraham-Israel-Moses-Buddha-Hillel-Jesus-Spinoza-Paine-Sagan & Mohammed, inspired every 76 years, 6000 years by the Messenger of God's Law, the sign of the Messiah, Halley's Comet: "WE'RE ALL ONE OR NONE!" "THERE IS NO GOD BUT GOD!" "TEACH LOVE THY ENEMY!" "LISTEN CHILDREN ETERNAL FATHER ETERNALLY ONE!" Israel-Moses-Buddha-Jesus-Mohammed: ONE! ALL ONE!*
posted by shiu mai baby at 6:43 AM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


godseyeview writes:

If you educated yourself in the arts of Liberty you would know that history has shown...


So if I just watch and/or read Stargate, Snowcrash, the Da Vinci Code, National Treasure I and II, Dianetics and Donnie Darko in, I'll know the truth like godseyeview.

I SMELL SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER
posted by shen1138 at 7:20 AM on September 8, 2008


This Ron Paulite appears blissfully unaware that Palin's policy in Alaska was to increase taxes on an industry in order to redistribute the wealth equally among the people.

And also implemented the most regressive sales tax system ever.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:23 AM on September 8, 2008


This Ron Paulite appears blissfully unaware that Palin's policy in Alaska was to increase taxes on an industry in order to redistribute the wealth equally among the people.

The oil severance tax is highly consistent with libertarianism, cf. geolibertarianism.

Not that I expect Dr Paul to have been so enlightened.
posted by troy at 7:28 AM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Wow...geolibertarianism appears to be the most sensible version of libertarianism I've come across so far!
posted by Jimbob at 7:40 AM on September 8, 2008


Today, I'm struck by the fact that a man who decided to delay law school and work for a Catholic iner-city charity for three years -- the very model that we wanted to applaud in 2000 -- is openly mocked by conservative leaders specifically for doing those things. The party is explicitly attacking the very things that they said were fundamental American values just two elections ago.

Here's the thing-when I listened to those speeches, I didn't take it as mocking community organisers. And I think it was a good thing that Obama did what he did, and I applaud it.

The point that was being made in the speeches (whether one agrees with it or not) that Obama's experience with the job of community organizer was not comparable to the experience of having an executive job (such as mayor or governor.) And in hindsight, I'm thinking the mocking tone in a couple of those speeches was not useful.

To give you a ridiculous example-let's say it was me running for President as a Democrat. I do volunteer church work to include admin work for a friend's ministry. The work I do in itself is admirable; to try to compare it to the work that our local mayor does-that would be ludicrous.

Meanwhile to be totally frank with you-the sum total of knowledge I have on what a community organizer actually IS came from Metafilter this past week. I don't think people in my region have a mental picture of what one does at all, and certainly not a racial picture.
posted by konolia at 7:47 AM on September 8, 2008


Guiliani's mocking facial expression was VERY evident every time he lingered over the phrase community organiser... and his voice was dripping with sarcasm. If you didn't catch that, you didn't watch the speech.
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:55 AM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


These religious conservatives with social consciences exist, and they're a profound force for good when they channel their energies. I was one of them, and I'm trying to figure out how the ones who stayed with the party internally process the experience of being pissed on while 37 million people watch on national television.

"Fool me once....etc." It is very hard for anybody (not only the religious) to admit they've been duped or that what they've always believed may not be true. Unfortunately, many continue to delude themselves rather than do the hard work of re-thinking their understanding. Laziness and inertia explain a lot of the idiot vote.
posted by binturong at 7:58 AM on September 8, 2008


Here's the thing-when I listened to those speeches, I didn't take it as mocking community organisers.

The actual delivery? Not some flattened rhetorical "point" behind it, but the actual delivery in either case? Rudy said "What?!" and then giggled at length. Palin was dripping in sarcasm and painted community organizing as being significantly without actual responsibilities. This in front of a crowd that happily booed on command.

Whatever point there is to be made about the differences between community organizing and small-town mayoring as far as applicable experience was absent from those portion of either speech. I know there's a lot of seeing-it-through-different-eyes that comes into how folks are going to experience these speeches, but it was in both cases a pretty blatant move to belittle rather than compare. It wasn't just not useful, it was ugly.
posted by cortex at 8:01 AM on September 8, 2008 [6 favorites]


To give you a ridiculous example-let's say it was me running for President as a Democrat. I do volunteer church work to include admin work for a friend's ministry. The work I do in itself is admirable; to try to compare it to the work that our local mayor does-that would be ludicrous.
posted by konolia at 10:47 AM on September 8


Depending on your actual duties at the church, you may in fact be a community organizer yourself. Do you, for example, organize programs through the church to work with other churches or other organizations to help people in your community?

That kind of work can be fairly simple and straight-forward (eg organizing the church's annual food drive), or it can be quite complicated. Let's say somebody (not Obama, I'm just giving an example, I don't know how many volunteers Obama coordinated) organizes the efforts of fifteen different organizations with over 1,000 volunteers each, to serve the needs of low-income families in a city of 3 million people - that person actually has more meaningful work experience (in terms of decision-making, organization, problem-solving, responsibility) than the mayor of a town of 8,000 people, especially given that mayors typically have a city council who help them make decisions.
posted by joannemerriam at 8:23 AM on September 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


Well, you know I'm no Rudy Giuliani fan to begin with.
posted by konolia at 8:24 AM on September 8, 2008


If there were a way we could fix it so that godseye's posts were all rendered in Courier, with occasional typographical hiccups, I think that would be pretty great, actually.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:26 AM on September 8, 2008


Why are you all sweating small details such as Republicans openly and gleefully mocking community service when the Goyim Antichrist is going to use the UN as a tool for the one world government?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:31 AM on September 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


It wasn't just not useful, it was ugly.

That pretty much sums up the (neo)conservative playbook of the last thirty years: "slander, slander, sleaze, tax cuts, slander, sleaze, inference, sleaze ..."
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:43 AM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


The point that was being made in the speeches (whether one agrees with it or not) that Obama's experience with the job of community organizer was not comparable to the experience of having an executive job (such as mayor or governor.) And in hindsight, I'm thinking the mocking tone in a couple of those speeches was not useful.

What does Executive Experience mean, exactly?

No, really. I've asked this question to EVERYONE and no one can answer the damn question.

They usually try to answer it in these vague terms, "Um, well, it means that you were a governor!" or "Um, well, it means that you held a leadership position in government!"


You know WHO ELSE had executive experience in government right?











Yup. George W Bush. Oh hey! And Bill Clinton. But both have totally different skills and abilities. And both have completely different approval ratings in their history.

So, quit dodging the question, McCain-Palin supporters. Enlighten us.

What are the skills and specific professional experiences that define Executive Experience?
posted by jeanmari at 9:02 AM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


"slander, slander, sleaze, tax cuts, slander, sleaze, inference, sleaze ..."

And lie, lie, lie.
posted by ericb at 9:08 AM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


The point that was being made in the speeches (whether one agrees with it or not) that Obama's experience with the job of community organizer was not comparable to the experience of having an executive job (such as mayor or governor.)
I understand, konolia, that you're not dim. You're capable of complex analysis and intelligent thought when it comes to articulating your ideas. But you really, seriously, sound like one of the feminists we made fun of in the 90's, who listened to the stories of Clinton's womanizing and denied it all, saying he was a champion for women everywhere.

We -- conservative Christians -- spent the 2000 election season listening to Bush and other conservatives talk about the despicable thrashing of government, the uselessness of bureaucracy, and the profound superiority of charities and businesses when any problem needed to be solved. The argument that you claim they are making means they never believed this in the first place.
Meanwhile to be totally frank with you-the sum total of knowledge I have on what a community organizer actually IS came from Metafilter this past week. I don't think people in my region have a mental picture of what one does at all, and certainly not a racial picture.
Eight years ago, if Bush had told us that he wanted to support the "community organizers" in churches and charities, we would have known exactly who and what he was talking about -- it's not some obscure latin phrase.
posted by verb at 9:13 AM on September 8, 2008


And lie, lie, lie.

It looks like the Obama campaign is finally starting to call them on it: Palin’s Lie Caught on Camera, Says Obama Campaign
posted by homunculus at 10:54 AM on September 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


This is one of the worst threads I've ever read (or scanned, or just laughed at).
posted by MarshallPoe at 10:56 AM on September 8, 2008


The only actual political point it seems was made about Obama's community organizing (beyond hurf durf) was Palin's thing about it not requiring any responsibility. Well, the facts are these:

"During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens." (the wiki article quoting a pay-to-read article.)

That's not folding envelopes. But it's really not about any sort of "responbility" because the Republicans weren't saying, like the Democrats say of McCain's POW days "Community Service is something Obama should be respected for, but in the end it doesn't qualify him to lead our country." Instead, they openly mocked and belittled him. Saying the words "Community organizing - what?!" and then giggling as those around you boo... that is the opposite of intelligent politics.

It's the same as in 2004 - Republicans didn't say "Kerry's service in the war was admirable, but ultimately doesn't qualify him to be President." They didn't attempt to make an adult and relevant point. Instead, they wore purple-heart bandaids. Seeing this trend as anything but childish is willfully ignoring what is going on before our eyes.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:06 AM on September 8, 2008 [7 favorites]


godseyeview writes "According to Prophecy the Messiah which the Goyim worship will reveil himself as the Anti-Christ plunging the remanence of the free world into a Satanic totalitarian one world government headed by an unaccountable extension of the UN bringing depths of exploitation and inhumane barbarity upon mankind for a millennium."

Aren't you supposed to be out on a ledge somewhere?
posted by krinklyfig at 1:44 PM on September 8, 2008


Brian B. writes "The reason Republicans need to 'use' religion in the first place is because they naturally lack votes, because they really only represent those who make all the profit and need lower taxes and greater access to government with their money. Therefore they reach down the economic ladder with persuasive religious talk, obsessing on morality as their currency, pushing issues related to voter patience and pacification. It's an old elitist trick, and the main reason religion exists organizationally in the world."

Well, as we've discussed elsewhere, the Republican Party did not start out this way. In the beginning it was a patchwork of interest groups mostly, but for a long time in the 20th century the Republicans were "progressive," by today's definition. The recent attraction of the Religious Right is a new strategy, and they play it for all the wedge issues they can, like they did with the Southern Strategy for a while. But if you look back pre-Goldwater, they weren't the same party at all, and in those days the Democrats were pretty racist in the south, but they were also dominant there. Only when the Republicans courted the racist vote did they overcome this disadvantage, but it's a Faustian bargain, much like courting the Religious Right (ironically enough).
posted by krinklyfig at 1:53 PM on September 8, 2008


Only when the Republicans courted the racist vote did they overcome this disadvantage, but it's a Faustian bargain, much like courting the Religious Right (ironically enough).

How so? Pugs have demonstrated that they can count on virtually all of the religious right vote, then they can delay indefinitely actually giving the RR what they want, even laugh at them behind closed doors and subsequently be ready to count on pretty much the same percentage of RR votes in election after election. How is this bargain "Faustian"?
posted by telstar at 2:41 PM on September 8, 2008


The point that was being made in the speeches (whether one agrees with it or not) that Obama's experience with the job of community organizer was not comparable to the experience of having an executive job (such as mayor or governor.)

I thought the point was for her to lie about her record, omit any mention of Obama's twelve years experience teaching constitutional law, seven years in the Illinois Senate, and three years in the United States Senate, and lie about Obama's legislative record.

t doesn't help that democrats have started and encouraged as many bullshit wars as republicans.

Hmm...let's see: the Quasi-War and War of 1812 happened before today's Democratic and Republican parties formed. James K. Polk, the Napoleon of the Stump, was a Democrat and started the Mexican-American War. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was president when the Civil War started. William McKinley, a Republican, started the Spanish-American War. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was president when the US entered World War I, but the war had been going on for three years and our ships had been attacked by a belligerent. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, was president when the US entered World War II, but the war had been going on for two years and our ships had been attacked by a belligerent. Harry S. Truman, a Democrat, was president when North Korea invaded South Korea to start the Korean War. Truman was also president when the US violated the terms of the Geneva Conference and laid the foundation for the Vietnam War, which Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, escalated by sending combat troops in 1965. George Bush 1.0, a Republican, was president when Iraq invaded Kuwait to start the Gulf War. George Bush 2.0, a Republican, invaded Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks and invaded Iraq to start the Iraq War.

So, two Democratic and two Republican presidents started wars under false pretenses. (Mexican-Amercan War, Spanish-American War, Vietnam War, and the Iraq War.) Several Democrats were president when other countries started wars and we defended our allies or fulfilled our treaty obligations. Finally, Democratic presidents won World War I and World War II.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:51 PM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


telstar writes "How so? Pugs have demonstrated that they can count on virtually all of the religious right vote, then they can delay indefinitely actually giving the RR what they want, even laugh at them behind closed doors and subsequently be ready to count on pretty much the same percentage of RR votes in election after election. How is this bargain 'Faustian'?"

Because the RR will abandon you if you don't line up with them. They are not loyal to anyone but their own cause. They are not really Republicans. If you try to get the swing votes by going moderate, you'll lose the Religious Right, but if you court them too much, you lose the swing votes. You can't even advance a pro-science (e.g., pro-research, which translates into jobs/education) agenda and maintain a good relationship with them, hence their positions on many issues don't make for good policy (admittedly, this also has to do with wedge issue strategies). IOW, you can't court the Religious Right and advance their agenda without alienating a lot of people in side and outside the base, though you can do the song and dance and pretend like you care, which is how the Republicans have handled it so far.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:35 PM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


telstar writes "Pugs have demonstrated that they can count on virtually all of the religious right vote"

BTW, this isn't really true. Until Palin was picked, a lot of the RR had given up on McCain, though he was more attractive to swing voters without her.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:38 PM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


kirkaracha writes "So, two Democratic and two Republican presidents started wars under false pretenses. (Mexican-Amercan War, Spanish-American War, Vietnam War, and the Iraq War.)"

You feel that our presence in Korea was justified? Remember that was the first of many "undeclared" wars, "police actions," as they were called, even Vietnam. In many ways, Korea was considered Truman's war, because he went in without Congress or anyone else's approval. It was the first time the US vowed "never again" to become embroiled in a land war in Asia. The first time ...
posted by krinklyfig at 3:44 PM on September 8, 2008


It depends on the legitimacy of the UN's involvement. American intervention in Korea was justified by United Nations Security Council Resolution 83, which recommended "that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area," so our involvement was a fulfillment of our treaty obligation.

However, Wikipedia notes some objections: conflict between between North and South Korean forces was as a civil war and therefore not covered by the UN Charter, and the UN resolutions weren't approved by the Security Council because the Soviet Union boycotted so they were invalid. I don't know enough about the UN Charter to address those objections. If the objections are valid, and if we didn't have a treaty with South Korea when North Korea invaded, then I suppose our presence wasn't justified.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:19 PM on September 8, 2008


by an unaccountable extension of the UN bringing depths of exploitation and inhumane barbarity upon mankind for a millennium.

If Obama can strengthen the UN for a millenium, he's got far greater skills than anyone has suspected.
posted by ersatz at 4:28 PM on September 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


Obama: Madd skilz!
posted by Mental Wimp at 5:04 PM on September 8, 2008


There you guys go using your facts again.

You want a fact? ALASKA IS NEXT TO RUSSIA!

Little known fact: The closer you are to Russia the more quickly you absorb a Harvard's Kennedy School of Foreign Affairs degree by osmosis!
posted by tkchrist at 6:50 PM on September 8, 2008


The news is just getting around to reporting the Palin has attended a Pentecostal church since her teen years until 2002.
posted by Brian B. at 7:16 PM on September 8, 2008


Dead Pentecostal link above, hurry while it lasts.
posted by Brian B. at 7:18 PM on September 8, 2008


It depends on the legitimacy of the UN's involvement.

I think it also might depend on your view of the role of Congress in undertaking war, not just immediate defensive actions. It can easily be argued that Korea (and Vietnam, and Afghanistan, and Nicaragua, and Iraq, and Iran, and ...) have strategic importance to the US, but the system we have is supposed to create a deliberative process by which we send troops to fight. Bypassing that constitutional process is an act of hubris at best, and a lawless act of aggression and an impeachable offense, at worst. I realize that since then this has become a rather common practice, but for quite a while it wasn't, and this to me is an insidious effect of Truman's insistence on "stop[ing] the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it." We're still living with the fact that we let him get away with it. Should have clamped that down, but quick, and teach these guys they can't get fast and lose with their authorities, particularly when it comes to waging war.

Oddly enough, although Truman bypassed the UNSC in his decision (acting on UNSC resolutions without their involvement is a vigilante act), he relied on them heavily after the US got involved. It was undoubtedly his albatross, but, truly, he got the ball rolling on lawless wars against "communism" or "drugs" or "terrorism" for decades, any excuse will do, and we just conveniently ignore the UN and later ask them for help, just like Truman.

Don't get me wrong. I like Truman, and he was a great president to get us through WWII. But after that he lost his direction in peacetime, and Korea was a hell of a black spot on the great legacy he already built. But wartime presidents aren't always good at leading in times of peace.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:29 PM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


I dunno krinklyfig, again I don't see too much that is "Faustian" (pact with the "devil" to gain power) about the relationship between the Pugs and the religious right. The Pugs take up and discard the RR at will, because what is the alternative for the RR in the binary US political system? That's right, those DemonRats! Who are secretly Muslim abortionists who want to surrender to Osama! Who will take your guns away! Who will teach about SEX to TEENAGERS, thus offending GOD right down to His Toenails. So they will vote Pug, no matter how much they grumble that the candidate isn't hick-religio-crazy enough. That's where Palin comes in. A soothing political balm for the RR.
posted by telstar at 7:54 PM on September 8, 2008


I think I might agree with you, but I'm (a) not educated enough about the particulars and (b) too drunk to make a cohesive argument. I'll stipulate that we probably agree that we shouldn't go to war without a congressional declaration of war; I just don't know enough about the specifics.

I disagree about Truman being "a great president to get us through WWII," though. He's like the backup quarterback who goes in in the fourth quarter with a three touchdown lead and doesn't screw up. In my view a bigger accomplishment was integrating the armed forces.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:01 PM on September 8, 2008


Truman bypassed the UNSC in his decision

?

I happen to have the book of NY Times front pages of the 20th century, and the articles on Korea are interesting, as the Wiki page on the conflict is really substandard.

"[UNSC] Adopts Plan of U.S. for Armed Force in Korea, 7 - 1" (Yugoslavia was the no, with Egypt and India abstaining).

Another front-page article is headed:

"Legislators Hail Truman -- Almost Unanimous Approval is Voiced By Congress on Both Sides"

And:

"House Votes 315-4 To Prolong Draft -- Korea Crisis Breaks Deadlock"


and he was a great president to get us through WWII.

?

One must remember that the Berlin Blockade ended only a year before these events in Korea. Plus also the fall of Chiang Kai Shek, not to mention Stalin getting the atom bomb that year (1949).

One of the questions I want to ask Daniel Ellsberg, should I meet him, is his contrast of Korea vs. Vietnam. I think his answer might be that the Kim regime lacked the legitimacy of the Hanoi regime; Hanoi had actually evicted the French and received the keys to the car via the 1954 Geneva Accords.
posted by troy at 8:09 PM on September 8, 2008


Here's the thing-when I listened to those speeches, I didn't take it as mocking community organisers.

WTF konolia? How in blue blazes could you listen to Giuliani's smirking belittlement and not both see the sneering mocking on his face and the sniggering disparagement in his voice? You'd have to be tone death and a social misfit to mistake his message and intention.

Honest to gods, sometimes I swear you are simply trolling us. No one can possibly be so blinkered and self-deceiving as to honestly believe that Guiliani as not mocking Obama's community organizing history.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:35 PM on September 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


that person actually has more meaningful work experience ... than the mayor of a town of 8,000 people, especially given that mayors typically have a city council who help them make decisions

Or, you know, an assigned city administrator to do all the heavy lifting for you because you've become so unpopular and untrusted that the people insist you just act as a figurehead.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:39 PM on September 8, 2008 [1 favorite]




Hurry while it lasts... that's just plain embarassing. Mass delusion and hysteria.

They're like a bunch of stoners, except that after the high wears off they still take themselves seriously.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:58 PM on September 8, 2008




At first I was happy that godseye was here for the esoteric weirdness, but then as he continued to post I started feeling really uncomfortable. What started out as merely strange and quirky quickly, quickly dissolved into a trope that sounds eerily similar in subject matter, phrasing, and main characters to the rant my best friend started in on shortly before having a complete psychotic breakdown and shooting himself in the head with a shotgun, something from which I (not to mention he) will never recover.

The fact that godseye is taking no offense at the responses to his comments and thus may not be together enough to realize that the attention and praise is actually just wanting to see the crazy guy caper around some more makes me think that he really is pretty far gone.

I am all for displays of crazy fireworks, and godseye's got him a big old bag of words, that's for sure, but if I knew him personally I'd be sad and afraid for him. I'm sad and afraid for him anyway. I hope somebody can step through the verbal deluge and get close enough to him to suggest that maybe the world isn't as filled with fear (or organization) as he thinks. Poor godseye. He must be tired.
posted by staggering termagant at 1:02 PM on September 9, 2008


Reading godseye's posts makes me think of Mel Gibson's character (Jerry Fletcher) in the film Conspiracy Theory.
posted by ericb at 2:15 PM on September 9, 2008


This Nassim Haramein that godseyeview is into isn't just a charlatan, he's a really boring charlatan. Seriously, you guys find this stuff in any way novel? Guess spending lots of time in California gives one the ability to spot this kind of dross a mile away. Guys like godseyeview are a dime-a-dozen in Cali. I kinda like the shotgun solution that staggering mentioned, but don't get your hopes up.
posted by telstar at 5:00 PM on September 9, 2008


So, I've gone from hating goseyeview, to his making me realize why I like the reasoned and rational konolia so much, to pitying him because - and I don't mean this as an ad hominum - people, he's clearly mentally ill.

Not because of any conservative leanings. Sound-minded people hold those as well, even if the majority of us disagree with him. But for all the other evidence (e.g. anger about liberals not understanding that alien technology built the pyramids and such technology was stolen by Moses, or something like that.)

godseyeview, I'm sorry for giving you shit before. I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, and I don't mean to impugn you, but from what I know from friends in those fields, I think you might have some degree of schizophrenia, and that if you aren't already receiving help, you should seek it.

This doesn't mean that your values are wrong, I just would like you to help yourself get better.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:34 PM on September 10, 2008


Rational? She believes God speaks to her personally. She believes God is angry at the nation of America. She believes that a Republican administration will overturn Roe vs. Wade, and believes that the economic and social cost of yet another four years of mismanagement is worth it. She believes, IIRC, the world is 6000 years old. She believes the Iraq war is a Godly war, and appears to be happy to send her own son to die for it.

I really do not see that alien technology is all that much less rational than the beliefs Konolia holds.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:55 AM on September 11, 2008


Point of order, I'm not a Young Earth creationist.

I never said Iraq was a godly war. I will say we made the mess, we clean it up.

And as for my son, unless a rabid liberal antinuke nun goes berserk in Wyoming, my son is perfectly safe for the next couple of years at F.E. Warren. (He'd rather be deployed, fwiw.)
posted by konolia at 6:22 AM on September 11, 2008


My apologies. I seem to be mixing up the crazy beliefs of people you support, with your own.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:05 AM on September 11, 2008 [2 favorites]


Point of order, I'm not a Young Earth creationist.

Trying to understand your point of view, konolia, does this mean you believe in evolution, or was the Old Earth created as it is today?
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:02 PM on September 12, 2008


I never said Iraq was a godly war. I will say we made the mess, we clean it up.


Second question, how would one ever tell what a godly war was, since His plan is not open to human understanding and the Bible doesn't really have a table of just and unjust wars?
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:03 PM on September 12, 2008


unless a rabid liberal antinuke nun goes berserk

I think he's pretty safe on that account. Now, a rabid anti-choice bomber...
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:12 PM on September 12, 2008


« Older The Eureka Tower Carpark   |   Getting lost more efficiently Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post