Quote
Today's GOP: You can't reason with crazy
By Gene Lyons May 11, 2012 10:54PM
After the comprehensive failures of President George W. Bush, conservatives faced a hard choice: rethink or go crazy. For too many, the election of Barack Obama appears to have made it a no-brainer. Millions have chosen the comforts of delusion, envisioning the ordinary give-and-take of politics in a democracy as an apocalyptic struggle between good and evil.
In a presidential election year, the evidence is everywhere. Two weeks ago, Florida GOP Rep. Allen West told a gathering of constituents that he knew of "78 to 81" congressional Democrats who are members of the Communist Party. Almost needless to say, West failed to name even one. Hardly anybody noticed, and certainly not the "severely conservative" presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. snip
Longtime GOP congressional aide Mike Lofgren wrote last year in explaining his resignation, "the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe."
For Obama to succeed where Bush had failed also had the potential to reduce the GOP to a powerless bloc of neo-Confederate whiners for a generation. So Obama had to fail at all costs.
Crazy can't be reasoned with. Only defeated. http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/12471883-452/todays-gop-you-cant-reason-with-crazy.html
AND THERE'S THIS WHICH SEEMS RELEVANT TO TNF....
Quote
How the Ayn Rand-Loving Right Is Like a Bunch of Teen Boys Gone Crazy
Flowers are nice, but this Mother's Day, what I really want is for these immature boys to grow up already
How to Tell the Men From the Boys
Conservatives completely fetishize masculinity. They idolize sports heroes, warriors and the Manly Jesus of modern evangelicalism. They eagerly seek the trappings that will buttress their sense of maleness in their own minds -- guns, big trucks, enough money and power to push other people around. The further right you go, the more exaggerated this focus on hypermasculinity becomes.
Psychiatrist Stephen Ducat explained this phenomenon at long length in his book, The Wimp Factor. Ducat's research shows that right-wing men are so obsessed with the external trappings of maleness precisely because they've failed to develop the inner qualities and accept the obligations that are required of actual adult men. It's all show, with nothing solid on the inside to back it up. And the more fragile their masculinity feels to them, the more exaggerated the outer display they put on is.
Given the insecurity that lies at the heart of this sad compensation, it's especially ironic that they've got the whole country buffaloed into thinking this is appropriate adult behavior. We've ended up with a culture of maleness that emphasizes the objectification and degredation of women, a lack of male accountability for anything that happens in the culture, and a definition of masculinity that's all about empty shows of dubious might -- like peacocks preening on parade.
For the record: This is a comic-book stereotype of manhood as it's imagined by little boys. But it's not the real deal -- not even close.
The essential difference that separates the men and the boys is that men understand and accept that they have an obligation to the greater good, and are willing to unflinchingly step up to that responsibility. They commit to their families. They work to improve their homes and communities, so they're safe and nurturing places for everyone to be. They take the long view as they plan for their kids' future. They look out for people around them who are weaker than they are. And they respect and cherish the co-parents of their children as their equal partners in that effort.
Adult men do not resent being asked to contribute to the collective whole. They know that their actions have consequences, and that they are responsible for the impact of those consequences on the greater good of the community.
Conservatives don't care about anyone else, but on average give more of their money and time to charitable organizations? I think I've got it.
It's not that conservatives don't care about other people, it's that it is impossible for liberals to believe that what conservatives want to do will actually help everyone, which if implemented correctly, will. It has been proven, over and over and over. Rand understood that decisions need to be made at the individual level, because people in general are selfish. She never once said that people should not think about the greater good. She just said they should not be required to do so. If she wanted to give to charity, it was because she was selfish and it benefited her in some way (made her feel good or whatever).
This is slanted propaganda at it's finest.
Depends on your definition of crazy Teatowel.
it's just that Liberals are very engrossed in that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. They view individual responsibility and opportunity as a burden, freedom as a curse, and equality as a tool of plunder rather than a simple truth.
Conservatives understand that by virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all others. That is why conservatives admire ingenuity, innovation, prosperity and the creation of wealth. To a Liberal these are things to be despised and plundered in the name of whatever cause, group, or disaster they can invent or exploit.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 14, 2012, 02:48:06 PM
Depends on your definition of crazy Teatowel.
it's just that Liberals are very engrossed in that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. They view individual responsibility and opportunity as a burden, freedom as a curse, and equality as a tool of plunder rather than a simple truth.
Conservatives understand that by virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all others. That is why conservatives admire ingenuity, innovation, prosperity and the creation of wealth. To a Liberal these are things to be despised and plundered in the name of whatever cause, group, or disaster they can invent or exploit.
Do you see the cliff yet?
Conservatives also espouse the belief that corporations should be given citizenship of their own...
Quote from: Hoss on May 14, 2012, 02:49:02 PM
Do you see the cliff yet?
Conservatives also espouse the belief that corporations should be given citizenship of their own...
I like how you did that. ;)
If you can support that claim, go for it.
Quote
Conservatives also espouse the belief that corporations should be given citizenship of their own...
They do? I didn't get the memo on that. Still, corporate
citizenship, I can get behind. Corporations should demonstrate some responsibility to help our society (and it doesn't hurt that a corporation should have a legal location where it can be found).
Now, if someone will someone please forward that memo circulated around 1886 that talked about corporate
personhood in connection with the fourteenth amendment? I'd appreciate that.
Quote from: erfalf on May 14, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
She never once said that people should not think about the greater good. She just said they should not be required to do so. If she wanted to give to charity, it was because she was selfish and it benefited her in some way (made her feel good or whatever).
That's actually not what she said at all.
Really? You guys are arguing conservative vs liberal? I opened a thread expecting some truly batshit craziness. Politics is a delusional game, period. My delusions are infinitely better than yours and I don't have to prove it. In netspace, I don't even have to note your posts exist.
This is the most marvelous ego feeding machine ever devised. :D
Quote from: AquaMan on May 14, 2012, 06:14:23 PM
Really? You guys are arguing conservative vs liberal? I opened a thread expecting some truly batshit craziness. Politics is a delusional game, period. My delusions are infinitely better than yours and I don't have to prove it. In netspace, I don't even have to note your posts exist.
This is the most marvelous ego feeding machine ever devised. :D
Um, did you see who started this thread?
Quote from: guido911 on May 14, 2012, 06:28:30 PM
Um, did you see who started this thread?
Yes, and I also noted who was participating.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 14, 2012, 06:39:12 PM
Yes, and I also noted who was participating.
I wouldn't be so hard on Nate and Hoss. :o
Quote from: guido911 on May 14, 2012, 07:02:27 PM
I wouldn't be so hard on Nate and Hoss. :o
You said hard on...
Quote from: nathanm on May 14, 2012, 04:16:30 PM
That's actually not what she said at all.
Speaking of Nate, Thanks for the Ayn Rand interview. How amazing was Wallace and Rand?! What strikes me is how civil, intelligent and respectful the two were. A philosopher/psychologist so smart and confident that she didn't need to yell, interrupt, bully and act out. And a real journalist of intellect with no discernable biases. Miss that. It feels like we have really degraded as a nation in our conversations.
Can't believe I never read those two books or any other interviews with her. Too busy with TV, comic books and objectifying women to have noticed, I guess.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 14, 2012, 07:27:13 PM
It feels like we have really degraded as a nation in our conversations.
What do you mean by that, fartknocker?
I participated in the decline. My oldest son's first profanity was to call me a ....Buh-Ted...presumably Beavis' friend. I was so proud.
Quote from: erfalf on May 14, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
Conservatives don't care about anyone else, but on average give more of their money and time to charitable organizations? I think I've got it.
It's not that conservatives don't care about other people, it's that it is impossible for liberals to believe that what conservatives want to do will actually help everyone, which if implemented correctly, will. It has been proven, over and over and over. Rand understood that decisions need to be made at the individual level, because people in general are selfish. She never once said that people should not think about the greater good. She just said they should not be required to do so. If she wanted to give to charity, it was because she was selfish and it benefited her in some way (made her feel good or whatever).
This is slanted propaganda at it's finest.
That's interesting. Yes it does seem that evangelical Christians do believe in the Church doing for the poor vrs government or even "secular charities". Saw some stats the other day that said that Oklahomans were some of the most giving people in the nation. Yet here we are with some of the highest cime rates, highest poverty rates, highest rates of child abuse, neglect and murder, etc. etc. etc. Hows that working for us?
Quote from: nathanm on May 14, 2012, 04:16:30 PM
That's actually not what she said at all.
It has been a long time (during and after high school) since I have read Rand. Will have to go back and review - a lot of time has elapsed.
From what I DO remember, and the Wallace interview really brought it out, is that she really doesn't believe in much at all, except for the individual - presumably, supported by her writing - as the "rugged individualist". Unless they are all getting together to strike against "the machine".
What just absolutely is astounding to me is the fundamentalist right wing religious groups who have taken up the banner of Ayn Rand. The only ones in the 60's and early 70's who were disciples were the lunatic fringe.
Certainly easy to see where Greenspan got his philosophy of "enlightened self-interest" in the casual watch-dog efforts over American corporations for so many years. He said that the best way was to let them "self-regulate" their activities, since they will only do that which is in the best interest of the American economy.
Ooopppsss!!!
Quote"It feels like we have really degraded as a nation in our conversations."
It's the Wimp Factor at work. Just look around here and cover the mirrors at home. ;D
...amazingly enough these conversations are
Quote" all show, with nothing solid on the inside to back it up..."
Quote from: Gaspar on May 14, 2012, 02:48:06 PM
They view individual responsibility and opportunity as a burden, freedom as a curse, and equality as a tool of plunder rather than a simple truth.
Speaking only for myself I see a society owned by the corporations and the wealthy to be quite unlike freedom. More like serfdom.
Mr. Asparagus: The thing is that they do act in their self interest. The problem is that the corporate fellatio artists of both parties rewrote the rules so that what's in their best interest is not in the best interest of the rest of us. They have been allowed to grow so large we can't let them bear the consequences of their mistakes without cratering our economy.
Weren't the bank bailouts the immediately precipitating event for the formation of the Tea Party before it was co-opted by right wing money? Doesn't it seem like the left and the right could work together to break them into manageable pieces?
Quote from: nathanm on May 14, 2012, 11:28:35 PM
Speaking only for myself I see a society owned by the corporations and the wealthy to be quite unlike freedom. More like serfdom.
Serfdom would be good for the sheeples!
Quote from: TheArtist on May 14, 2012, 08:46:22 PM
That's interesting. Yes it does seem that evangelical Christians do believe in the Church doing for the poor vrs government or even "secular charities". Saw some stats the other day that said that Oklahomans were some of the most giving people in the nation. Yet here we are with some of the highest cime rates, highest poverty rates, highest rates of child abuse, neglect and murder, etc. etc. etc. Hows that working for us?
I hope you are not trying to draw a correlation between the two. If so, I fail to see it. If so, it would be enlightening.
I'm not by any means defending everything Oklahoma's politicians do. They are some real ding bats there that's for sure. I was just trying to show that what one might call selfishness, another might call compassion. It is all a matter of perspective. Something that seems to be lacking for sure.
Regarding the Rand interview, it is a good one for sure. Wallace definitaly had his predisposition to favor some government programs, but he was willing to entertain Rand's point of view. Which I still don't understand how AquaMan thinks I was off base on my assessment of her. Can you explain? Please...
Quote from: erfalf on May 15, 2012, 09:31:24 AM
I hope you are not trying to draw a correlation between the two. If so, I fail to see it. If so, it would be enlightening.
I'm not by any means defending everything Oklahoma's politicians do. They are some real ding bats there that's for sure. I was just trying to show that what one might call selfishness, another might call compassion. It is all a matter of perspective. Something that seems to be lacking for sure.
Regarding the Rand interview, it is a good one for sure. Wallace definitaly had his predisposition to favor some government programs, but he was willing to entertain Rand's point of view. Which I still don't understand how AquaMan thinks I was off base on my assessment of her. Can you explain? Please...
I will just toss out a bunch of "correlations" that I see. Each one quite different, yet they all seem to fall together to paint one picture.
1. Look at a demographic map of the US showing early migration patterns and you see a swath running through the south and appalachia of people who have always tended to hold quite religious/evangelical and "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps" "anti-government intervention" perspectives. Big chunk of those people were the ones who migrated into Oklahoma as the farmers and oil workers.
2. Look at the poverty map and obesity map and you get a swath that follows that migration pattern almost exactly.
3. There is a synergistic thing that goes on in the NE. Big, pedestrian friendly cities and certain european demograpics/attitudes. The synergies tend to push a "lets work together because we are all in it together" attitude.
4. I look around the world and it seems to me that many of the most religiously fundamentalist and highly religious countries are ones that either have some of the least freedoms and or the most crimes. One can't help but think of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as examples of that and believe more in "punishment, eye for an eye, anti gay, keeping women in their place, etc.".
5. I look around the world and see that many of the least religious democracies also have some of the lowest crime rates and believe more in "helping people become better and being aware of mental illnesses and how to help those people, gays and women are treated well, are some of the "happiest" countries in the world, create great pedestrian/transit frienly cities, etc."
6. Then I look at Oklahoma and see our high crime rates, hear the calls for harsher punishments, teaching creationism in schools, getting rid of government (unless its about enforcing something religious), having the churches be the ones that help the poor not the government, hatred of gays, championing keeping women at home, having religious schools and tearing down public schools or having religion in them, anti-pedestrian/public transit, etc. etc. And I can't help but think that there are a lot of people in this state that want to push us more towards the Afghanistan side of things vrs say Denmark or Sweeden.
Whenever you hear things that the good folk in our capitol are doing and the "values" they espouse... which direction do you think they are wanting to take us?
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 14, 2012, 11:08:39 PM
It's the Wimp Factor at work. Just look around here and cover the mirrors at home. ;D
...amazingly enough these conversations are
Hey...you talkin' about me?! True enough I have participated as I said in the decline in good, intelligent issue discussion. But overall I have eschewed the name calling, and the dogma in favor of insight and analysis. Maybe not as bold as you or the Gweed......
Quote from: TheArtist on May 15, 2012, 10:41:30 AM
6. Then I look at Oklahoma and see our high crime rates, hear the calls for harsher punishments, teaching creationism in schools, getting rid of government (unless its about enforcing something religious), having the churches be the ones that help the poor not the government, hatred of gays, championing keeping women at home, having religious schools and tearing down public schools or having religion in them, anti-pedestrian/public transit, etc. etc. And I can't help but think that there are a lot of people in this state that want to push us more towards the Afghanistan side of things vrs say Denmark or Sweeden.
Whenever you hear things that the good folk in our capitol are doing and the "values" they espouse... which direction do you think they are wanting to take us?
I blame a "lemming" attitude here in Oklahoma. If our education was better people would learn the "Okie" way was wrong.
Oklahoman's don't know any better so we do things to fit in and yell out "yeah" holding our pitch forks when told to by our leaders.
If you're not towing the line you're an outsider and can't be trusted.
Has anyone seen the new Sullivan commercial? A perfect example.
Quote from: erfalf on May 15, 2012, 09:31:24 AM
Regarding the Rand interview, it is a good one for sure. Wallace definitaly had his predisposition to favor some government programs, but he was willing to entertain Rand's point of view. Which I still don't understand how AquaMan thinks I was off base on my assessment of her. Can you explain? Please...
Perhaps you mistook another post somewhere else for mine? I can't find where I addressed an assessment of her. I don't really know enough other than that clip to even assess her. If you mean the predisposition towards government programs that you though Wallace had, I didn't see that as a bias but more as a devil's advocate role since he was the only other participant in the conversation. Her views, although fringe back then and commonplace now, were an invitation to question their effect on those existing programs.
Quote from: Townsend on May 15, 2012, 10:52:17 AM
I blame a "lemming" attitude here in Oklahoma. If our education was better people would learn the "Okie" way was wrong.
Oklahoman's don't know any better so we do things to fit in and yell out "yeah" holding our pitch forks when told to by our leaders.
If you're not towing the line you're an outsider and can't be trusted.
Has anyone seen the new Sullivan commercial? A perfect example.
Saw some of the visuals. A lot of scowling faces whenever the words Obama or Obama Care were used. Typical stuff. Turn the sound off and just laugh.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 15, 2012, 10:57:00 AM
Saw some of the visuals. A lot of scowling faces whenever the words Obama or Obama Care were used. Typical stuff. Turn the sound off and just laugh.
"Okie Way" and "He's got Okie in him". Those were the tags.
I'd laugh if I lived outside the state and thought it was a joke. I don't and it's not meant to be. Nauseated...that fits.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 15, 2012, 10:55:25 AM
Perhaps you mistook another post somewhere else for mine? I can't find where I addressed an assessment of her. I don't really know enough other than that clip to even assess her. If you mean the predisposition towards government programs that you though Wallace had, I didn't see that as a bias but more as a devil's advocate role since he was the only other participant in the conversation. Her views, although fringe back then and commonplace now, were an invitation to question their effect on those existing programs.
Sorry about that, it was nathan who posted the video. I just didn't understand his problem with my comment. Sorry again.
I guess my perspective of Wallace is shaped by more recent interviews of him. He definitely has a point of view (which we all do). He just seemed to frame some of the questions in the Rand interview in a "you're crazy for thinking this" light. Which, at the time, maybe it was really that crazy. Heck my parents were children when it happened. Things have changed a bunch since then.
Quote from: Townsend on May 15, 2012, 10:52:17 AM
Has anyone seen the new Sullivan commercial? A perfect example.
I about through up in my mouth when I heard it. I'm afraid this election cycle is going to be very emotionally based. It will be difficult for either candidate to really point at their accomplishments because they have both pissed off so many people.
Artist:
When you look at the history of this state, the reason we have so many "bootstraps" is because that is what they were, that and freeloaders. One of the biggest events in this state was the land run of Indian territories. People were given free land, but they had nothing else. They had to do it themselves. That trait has been passed down and still exists. Heck some of my family still live on and farm the land they got in the land run. It isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is that frame of mind that made America. We thought we could do it ourselves, we didn't need or want the British dictating to us.
I will agree, that those people that are legislating morality (or whatever you want to call it) bug me to no end. They remind me of televangelists. It is frustrating. Personally, I have faith in my savior, but it is a personal thing. If you ask I will share, but I am not going to expect or push my beliefs on you, or anyone.
I understand the whole it takes a village thing, I just tend to think that government is generally not equipped to deal with the problems, socially, that our society faces. It's not just churches that take up these causes. I know in Bartlesville there are several non-denominations non-profits that give a great deal to our community: Agape, Mary Martha, ARC, several family foundations & many others. It is not exclusively the realm of the church.
No one talks like this, but it is also difficult to compare states in my opinion. Comparing Oklahoma (one of the youngest states in the nation, and one of the last to be populated by westerners) to any east coast industrial state is difficult. They have had more time to create wealth. We are still primarily a mineral and farming state. Those are some of the early industries in each states. We have not had the time to progress. Does anyone take this into consideration or am I talking out of my donkey.
I really do appreciate your points of view. I understand you have seen more of the world than I. And I know that you really do want the best for Tulsa and I doubt that you have lost hope in Oklahoma. That, I hope we can agree on.