A new Republican ideas site called Rebuild the Party has rejected Marc Perkel’s Idea that the Republican Party should embrace REALITY. Here’s the idea that was deemed inappropriate and rejected. Perhaps there is no hope for the Republicans.
The GOP Platform should be REALITY Based – inappropriate
I believe that it is important for the GOP to embrace REALITY. I think that in the past the party has turned a blind eye to reality and I think that our future depends on our party making reality their friend.
# 29 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, “Which way are they leaning now?”
On what issue?
#31 – FantasyMan
>>Homosexuality is a disease that, by it’s
>>very nature, kills the genetic line affected
>>by it.
OK, so what’s the fucking problem? Are you afraid the world will become underpopulated?
According to you, this “disease” is self-limiting and, by definition, will not be propagated to the next generation. Are vasectomized men, tube-tied women, users of birth control, and those who choose not to marry and/ or procreate afflicted by the same “disease”? Or is it just the fags?
So. Why all the interest in what other people are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and what they call their relationship?
It all comes back to GodHatesFags.
#33, I have no problem with what people do in their own bedrooms. Does that make me higher on the ladder or do I have a broken gene? I really don’t know.
Do I like being around gays? Nope. They creep me out.
Do I think they deserve to be married? If churches don’t want to marry them, that is their business. If the state will let them tie the knot, that is for the voters to decide. These are two different institutions — church and state.
Personally, I think you should be able to get married without the state having any say in the matter and vice versa, unless you are wanting legal rights. The state has a long history of denying people the freedom to do with their lives as they see fit so what’s the difference here?
#34 – FantasyMan
>>. The state has a long history of denying
>>people the freedom to do with their lives as
>>they see fit so what’s the difference here.
That’s a heck of a justification. “The state fucks people over on other things, so what’s wrong with them fucking them over on this?”. Sheesh.
>>Do I think they deserve to be married? If
>>churches don’t want to marry them, that is
>>their business
Oh. But if some churches DO want to marry them, then it’s somebody else’s business?
>>If the state will let them tie the knot,
>>that is for the voters to decide
What else is for the “voters” to decide? If women should be allowed to vote? If men and women of different races should be allowed to marry? If black people should be slaves? The “voters” have every right to determine what THEY THEMSELVES do; if they don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, they’re perfectly free not to do so. Giving “voters” the ability to muck around with other people’s private lives (in areas that have absolutely no effect on these “voters” and that they should not be concerned with) is quite another thing, and a malignant one at that.
>>Do I like being around gays? Nope. They
>>creep me out.
Just as I said. GodHatesFags. dot org.
btw, not every gay person is a mincing femme. Hey, look at Larry Craig!
The GOP Platform should be REALITY Based – inappropriate
The DNC Platform is HOLLYWOOD Based-
so who the hell needs reality?
Modern politics is about popularity and ratings.
“Avoid popularity; it has many snares, and no real benefit.”
William Penn
“William Penn, now a devoted Quaker, landed in jail four times for what he believed. However, not one or all of his incarcerations convinced him to recant his Quaker faith. In stead, Penn went on to compose some forty-two books defending the Quakers.” Suite 101
The Quaker Oats brand is still going strong. Obama has a brand old strategy. He’d be a better politician if he spent some time in jail. You can’t have everything.
Paddy….all of it.
#34, I didn’t say I hated them. I just said they creep me out. Big difference. I also don’t like being around rednecks. They creep me out, too.
Poison,
Giving “voters” the ability to muck around with other people’s private lives
This is quite a statement coming from someone who believes it is the right of someone to take someone else’s money and do with it as they please.
What’s the difference between telling people what they can’t spend their money on and telling them who they can’t marry?
You stepped in it that time, Poison.
#38 – FantasyMan
>>I didn’t say I hated them. I just said
>>they creep me out.
OK, so only God hates them then. And some rednecks.
So. What’s the problem with letting them get married?
Lots of things creep me out (overcooked meat, folding laundry, canned vegetables, people who talk about nothing but the stock market, people who smoke in their homes and cars, etc.).
Yet I don’t feel a need to sponsor an initiative making those things illegal.
Why are so many people so interested in legislation preventing others from pursuing their own happiness in ways that have absolutely no effect on them, when it comes to gay marriage? Does it really make any difference whether those two guys making out on the park bench are married, in a civil union, or just hooked up temporarily for some casual sex?
These buttinskis ought to get a life, and clean up their OWN houses before they start legislating what other people can and cannot do.
#39 – Liberty Loser
>>What’s the difference between telling people what
>>they can’t spend their money on and telling them who
>>they can’t marry?
Wtf are you talking about? I hope you’re not talking about taxes. Is this more of your “taxation is slavery” drivel?
If so, move along.
#41, Poision,
Hey, I didn’t say the voters shouldn’t be allowed to tell people what to do.
You did.
But I guess you didn’t think before you started spouting that “we have to take care of the little people” butt-juice you are famous for.
You got caught with your britches down, acting like a conservative. OWNED!!!
The core problem with reality is that it doesn’t fit our comfortable preconceived notions. Selling reality is hard. It forces people to think about things their belief structures aren’t ready to accept.
It’s much easier to convince a Republican that inciting a crowd of potential voters to near riot–at least to the point of having them shout boos and “kill him” will produce bigger results in the voting booth than talking about boring things like this or that approach to solving a government-level problem (economy, war, etc.).
Intuition rarely produces actual, real-world beneficial results, Hollywood’s cop-with-a-hunch notwithstanding. The reason we buy into that fairy tale is because it is so RARE to have a wild-ass conjecture turn out to connect with the real perp, that it makes for good fake drama.
But now that we all have that deeply ingrained suspicion that wild-ass hunches –and our own bullshit beliefs (religion, faith in this or that political party, notions of who sits with terrorists, etc.)– are really valuable and constructive, it’s a tough uphill sell to overcome all that cow dung.
#42 – LIbery Loser
>>Hey, I didn’t say the voters shouldn’t be allowed to
>>tell people what to do. You did.
I reiterate, Loser: wtf are you talking about. Your double negatives and unwillingness to speak in clear, complete sentences make you quite hard to understand.
If you’ll clarify wtf you’re talking about, I’m sure I can pwn you this time, just like it ever was.
So put up or shut up.
TIA.
>40, I didn’t say there was anything wrong with them getting married. If they can find a church that will do it, that’s fine. No where in any of my posts do I state I don’t think they should be able to.
However, society is ultimately responsible for its own well being. Society has to make the choice whether they will support gay marriage from a legal standpoint or not. Ramming it down their throats is not the answer.
The gay community is going to have to convince society to let them do that. Until they do, the “God Hates Them” crowd is going to win every time.
#45, Poison,
I thought I was pretty clear. You don’t think the voters should be able to tell someone how to live. Do you agree with that statement?
So put up or shut up.
It’s easy to get in someone’s face when you can’t see it, huh?
#45 – FantasyMan
>>Society has to make the choice whether they will
>>support gay marriage from a legal standpoint or not.
I guess it’s just good luck for blacks, women, and inter-racial (heterosexual) couples that “society” (ie the voters) didn’t get to decide for them, eh?
#46 – Liberty Loser
>>It’s easy to get in someone’s face when you
>>can’t see it, huh?
Whoa! Are you going to partner up with Paddy-RAMBO, piling up them liberal bodies when you meet them irl? Yikes! My knees are knocking and my teeth are chattering!!
>>I thought I was pretty clear. You don’t think the
>>voters should be able to tell someone how to live.
>>Do you agree with that statement?
If you could be a little more specific, perhaps I would be able to answer your open-ended question. I think it’s OK for voters to tell someone how to live their life if “living their life” involves child rape, mail fraud, overtime parking at a meter, or any of a variety of other behaviors that have a negative effect on other members of society. I do not think it’s OK to tell someone how to live their life when they way they choose to do it has no effect on society.
So. Did you have something in mind, stud, or were you just enjoying the thrill of seeing your words in print?
Perkel–is there some other link to give some “substance” to your idea of “Reality?” The link in the Header tells us nothing.
I laugh at people who counsel: “Be Careful.” Just not specific enough to be anything except a waste of time–like Reality.
If every party governed/legislated/politicized to the middle, they would be all the same. Instead, each party is aimed at a special interest. The big parties somewhat broader than the smaller partys, but special interests nonetheless.
If your party really is for big business and the rich and you serve these by every four years selling out the religious, gun toting, fag hating high school drop outs in this country, then THAT is your political interest and that is your reality.
BTW–any study of Darwinian Genetics shows the role of homosexuality in homo sapiens. Logic says it is a dead end, but “reality” happened a different way. In short–homosexuality is gene linked to overall reproductivity.
If you love FREEDOM, you let other people do things you yourself would not. In general, people hate FREEDOM. Its the job of culture to educate people out of ignorance. The Repuglican party was formed in ignorance to fight for the same.
#48, Poison,
>>It’s easy to get in someone’s face when you
>>can’t see it, huh?
Whoa! Are you going to partner up with Paddy-RAMBO, piling up them liberal bodies when you meet them irl? Yikes! My knees are knocking and my teeth are chattering!!
Again, you didn’t answer my question. Sigh.
I do not think it’s OK to tell someone how to live their life when they way they choose to do it has no effect on society.
By what standard is the effect determined? Who gets to choose?
to paraphrase Ann Coulter – if Republicans embraced reality, they’d be Democrats.
#50 – Loser
>>Again, you didn’t answer my question. Sigh.
Perhaps if you could articulate it better, I might answer it. To the extent that I can decode your mumbo jumbo, I believe I have answered it fully.
Of course, I’m shaking in my boots at your implied threats of physical violence, so maybe I missed something.
#50 – Loser
>>By what standard is the effect determined? Who
>>gets to choose?
Some truths are held to be self-evident. And one of them is “if it’s not harming anyone else, butt the fuck out”.
Or is the Declaration of Independence “just a goddamned piece of paper”, like the Constitution?
#52, Poison,
>>Again, you didn’t answer my question. Sigh.
Perhaps if you could articulate it better, I might answer it. To the extent that I can decode your mumbo jumbo, I believe I have answered it fully.
Of course, I’m shaking in my boots at your implied threats of physical violence, so maybe I missed something.
Watch closely. It’s a question (take notice of the question mark). This question determines if you find it easier to insult someone when you know there is no possibility of having to look them in the eye.
“It’s easy to get in someone’s face when you
can’t see it, huh?”
#53, You still didn’t answer the question. Do you lube yourself up before you get on this blog or are you just a moron?
Answer the question, Poison. Who determines what is harmful to society?
#54 – Loser
>>“It’s easy to get in someone’s face when you
>>can’t see it, huh?”
Yes, it is. I imagine that explains your belligerence, no?
>>Who determines what is harmful to society?
Well, there are some grey areas, and those are decided on an ad hoc basis, for the most part.
Then, there are many actions that are either CLEARLY HARMFUL or CLEARLY BENIGN. In those cases, it’s hard to see that any decision needs to be made. The latter would certainly be the case with homo-on-homo marriage, except for the vitriol injected into the situation by the GodHatesFags rednecked fucktards, who insist on meddling in things that have no effect whatsoever on them, their families, or anyone else in society.
Next question, stud?
James Hill: Angry liberals embrace hate and fearmonger.
Mustard: Jimmy you’re an asshole, blah blah blah blah
James: I accept your worship. I own everyone on this site.
Just thought I’d save everyone some time…
Onto reality. The Republicans have two options:
1. Sarah Palin with a focus on small town, “values”, anti-intellectual, all white focus
2. Competent government with a conservative focus
We’ll see what happens….
QB–and that is the challenge for the repugs. Can’t get elected without #1, can’t do #2 and satisfy #1. They need to find another “uniter.”
@Marc Perkel
“There’s something funny about you, boy…”
Wow, mustard owns this round. epic rants
#55, Poison,
>>“It’s easy to get in someone’s face when you
>>can’t see it, huh?”
Yes.
See how easy that was?
>>Who determines what is harmful to society?
Well, there are some grey areas,
Agreed.
and those are decided on an ad hoc basis, for the most part.
By whom? That is the question.
Then, there are many actions that are either CLEARLY HARMFUL or CLEARLY BENIGN. In those cases, it’s hard to see that any decision needs to be made.
Agreed.
The latter would certainly be the case with homo-on-homo marriage, except for the vitriol injected into the situation by the GodHatesFags rednecked fucktards, who insist on meddling in things that have no effect whatsoever on them, their families, or anyone else in society.
Obviously it isn’t as benign as your opinion would dictate. If it were, there wouldn’t be as many people concerned about it as there are. You may feel it is a non-issue (and I do too for that matter) but there are certainly people out there who don’t.
Should their feelings be considered even if we don’t agree with them?
Seriously, when you use “GodHatesFags rednecked fucktards” you are not any better than they are when they say, “Faggots rot in Hell.” To them, their opinion is benign and they don’t understand how some people can tolerate them in society. They find them a scourge on society.
So now we come back to the question — and it isn’t a pointed question at you trying to lay a trap to prove a point — but who really gets to make the decisions on what is harmful to society?