People become Republicans because of religion

Posted on April 14, 2013 by Michael

At least for the vast majority, that is. See here:

With no debate, Republicans at the party’s spring meeting here on Friday unanimously approved a number of resolutions, including one that reaffirmed the party’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

“The Republican National Committee affirms its support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America,” the resolution read. The 157 RNC members present approved it in a voice vote.

I’ve made the claim in the past that the reason people turn to the GOP is out of their conservative Christianity. To me, this is a very tiny, very obvious claim. Basically dishonest people who aren’t interested in critical thinking (or doing any research, but I digress), such as the odious Michael Hartwell, have tried to spin my statement in a way where in order to prove it I would have to explicitly know the minds of every single Republican. Under his requirements, we could never surmise why anyone becomes anything if the group we’re discussing is sufficiently large. (This is interesting, too, since he has gone the racist route of claiming that blacks vote for Democrats because they benefit from and like handouts.)

At any rate, I think this is all quite obvious: Most people who become Republican are first fundamentally religious, soon recognizing that there is a political party which reflects their religiosity. The re-affirmation of the GOP’s opposite to marriage equality is a perfect example of this because there are no good (or even honest) secular arguments against allowing same-sex couples their constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage. That is, it is the base Christianity that underlies the Republican party that has caused this vote and view; we don’t live in some backwards world where people became bigoted Republicans all on their own, later noticing that a particular cultural religion happens to exactly reflect their positions.

Filed under: News, Religions, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Do Republicans even like Jesus?

Posted on November 26, 2012 by Michael

I mean, I know that most people who become Republicans do so because they’re already Christians, but it seems like there’s a lot of disconnect in certain areas.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

Thought of the day

Posted on July 7, 2012 by Michael

To review: To review: Republicans ruin economy, lose power, intentionally stall the economy, regain some power, continue to intentionally stall the economy, ask for more power.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Is it a tax or a fine? You can’t have it both ways, Republicans.

Posted on July 1, 2012 by Michael

The Republican outrage to the Affordable Care Act prior to the Supreme Court ruling was primarily premised in the idea that it was a fine. That is, Republicans argued that by being fined for not having healthcare, they were being coerced into something. And, of course, that is inherently anti-liberty. That was the issue. Now, however, the Court has called the act a tax. Naturally, Republicans are pounding that phrase into the ground. It makes sense since President Obama hasn’t raised taxes, despite that being all we’ve heard for nearly four years. (In fact, he has lowered them.) They finally have the ammunition they want. (Except that the tax increases primarily go towards insurance companies, the wealthy, and certain other groups. The middle class isn’t terribly affected, and even for those that are, they only face a 1% increase.)

But this raises a serious problem. If this is a tax, then it cannot also be a fine. And if it isn’t a fine, it is not an attack on anyone’s liberty. (Unless someone is ready to argue that all taxes are anti-liberty, I suppose.) The Republicans need to make a choice here: They can call this a tax; They can call it a fine; They cannot call it both. Of course, I know they will not make that choice. They will continue using both lines of rhetoric – because honesty is hard, amirite? – but logically speaking, their hands are tied one way or the other.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Republican complaints aren’t even valid

Posted on April 19, 2012 by Michael

I could mean all of their complaints, but I have a specific one in mind:

The White House on Thursday dismissed as “kinda ridiculous” complaints that President Barack Obama has been billing taxpayers for criss-crossing the country, giving speeches in states that could be critical to his reelection campaign…

The press secretary also hit out at critics who have noted that Obama’s message at political events is largely indistinguishable from his official events.”The suggestion that there is something wrong with the fact that the president says the same thing about what his vision is, and what his policies are, and what his beliefs are in front of official audiences, non political audiences, as he does in front of audiences who are his supporters, I think is kinda ridiculous,” Carney said.

How dare someone be consistent. This is American politics, god damn it.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

Thought of the day

Posted on March 9, 2012 by Michael

Democrats will be setting their clocks forward one hour for Daylight Savings this Sunday. As a matter of habit, Republicans will attempt setting time back instead.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

At least 46% of Mississippi Republicans are overt racists

Posted on February 19, 2012 by Michael

And who knows about those too embarrassed to express their views:

When usual Republican primary voters in the state of Mississippi were asked if they think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal, a whopping 46 percent said it should be illegal, compared to 40 percent who think it should be legal. The remaining 14 percent were unsure.

There seems to be a pattern here. Roughly 40% of voters in 1998 (South Carolina) and 2000 (Alabama) voted against removing defunct bans on interracial marriage from their constitutions. I have no stats which break down how many of these people were Republicans, but who thinks they were mostly Democrats? The GOP is doing a heck of a job as solidifying itself as the party of racists, particularly in the South. I may have to throw out that old saying, ‘Republicans may not be racist, but racists vote Republican.’ The data suggests the first clause to be false.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , | 9 Comments »

Thought of the day

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Michael

Other than Jon Huntsman, I’m hard-pressed to name a reasonable Republican. I’m sure they’re out there. I just don’t know where to look.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , | 12 Comments »

Unemplyoment bill in SC

Posted on January 10, 2012 by Michael

I can’t say I entirely disagree with efforts in South Carolina to reform how unemployment benefits are paid out. Basically, they want to get people back to work doing something. Some of it makes sense:

A Senate panel advanced bills Tuesday that would require people laid off in South Carolina to pass a drug test to receive unemployment benefits, then volunteer 16 hours weekly with a charity or public agency to keep receiving a check…

Another policy change would require people drawing unemployment benefits to accept job offers that pay incrementally less than their previous wages.

The change means those drawing unemployment benefits must accept job offers that pay 90 percent of their previous wage after four weeks. The percentage would drop every four weeks. After 16 unemployment payments, they’d have to accept 70 percent of their previous income. Once federal extensions kick in at 20 weeks, they’d have to accept minimum wage labor.

I can agree with the volunteer work to an extent. Currently there are companies which state that people out of work for certain periods of time need not apply. There have been movements to make it illegal to do that (which I support), but I don’t know of any state that has actually passed any legislation. Having people volunteer in certain areas would counter some of the concerns of the douchebag companies out there. (I don’t know the ins-and-outs of the bill, but it would make sense to include internships as well.)

Of course, this doesn’t come without its problems. A person on unemployment in South Carolina gets about $235 a week. As a single individual with roommates, I could get by on that if need be, but anyone with kids is necessarily going to struggle. I can’t imagine it would be easy to pay for daycare or a babysitter for 16 hours a week while already on such a tight budget. For some people the SC bill is only going to make life more difficult, thus forcing them onto welfare for longer. That would be counter-productive for everybody.

On drug tests, I think that’s just a stupid idea. Relatively few people on welfare spend their money on illegal drugs, so the whole idea isn’t practical. And for those who do imbibe such substances, the testing costs are astronomical compared to the savings for the states.

On forcing people to accept job offers that suck, there are two obvious problems. First, fuck you to anyone who forces a person to work at a particular place or for a particular wage. Given how fond Republicans are of pretending that taxes are somehow akin to enslavement, I would think they might be more sensitive to forcing people into certain actions regarding their economic well-being. Second, any company that sees a large gap in a person’s work history is liable to intentionally offer that person the lowest wage they know they can get away with. All this does is create cheap labor for businesses by unfair means. If the state wishes to encourage people to get off welfare, they should use the carrot, not the stick.

So, some of these ideas aren’t entirely terrible. I think it’s likely the volunteer idea is motivated by the Republican perception that poor people are inherently lazy and bad, but it does have some merit to it. Indeed, the drug testing idea has a similar motivation, though it has no merit. The forced-work/slavery idea is a terrible one, but it has seemingly decent enough motivations. But then, this is South Carolina. I really don’t expect them to fix any of their problems in a way which resembles anything rational. (Sorry, native South Carolinian Stephen Colbert.)

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »

“Booooo” Santorum

Posted on January 6, 2012 by Michael

Rick Santorum is campaigning in New Hampshire, one of the few states that does not discriminate against gays in marriage and the site of the first Republican primary. I don’t think he’s going to do well there, but then who knew he was going to do well in Iowa. Of course, while Iowa also does not discriminate against gays in marriage, many of its citizens would prefer to turn the clock back. That gives Santorum and all the vile things he says a little power there. That probably won’t be the case in New Hampshire, and it certainly was not the case in front of a bunch of college students in Concord:

Rick Santorum was booed after a lengthy back-and-forth with several students in Concord, N.H., on the issue of same-sex marriage, which is legal in New Hampshire.

As Santorum addressed a group of college students, one asked him how same-sex marriage affects him personally and why not have legal same-sex marriage as long as it’s not religious in nature.

Santorum answered that for “230 years marriage has been between one man and woman. So if you want to change the law…you have to make the positive argument about why.”

This actually is sort of correct. In order for change to happen, those in favor of said change need to say why it should happen. However, the game has been rigged. People like Santorum never made their positive argument for marriage 230 years ago. They didn’t even give a second thought to gays and so marriage was assumed to be between one man and one woman. The onus is actually on him.

And what are his arguments? Appeals to tradition and inapt comparisons. The former is just an extension of the rigged game and is thus logically invalid; it isn’t a positive argument at all. The latter is why “Santorum” has the frothy definition it does.

But to Frothy’s credit, he stuck by his guns and tried to make the students justify their positions:

Santorum responded, “Are we saying that everyone should have the right to marry?”

Several members of the crowd loudly yelled, “Yes!”

At that point, the former senator from Pennsylvania compared same-sex marriage to polygamy.

“So anyone can marry can marry anybody else? So if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people … so you can be married to five people. Is that OK?” Santorum asked.

I’m a little disappointed in the response. Students shouted back that they weren’t discussing polygamy. That is true and Frothy was creating a red herring, but I’m perfectly happy responding to his question: Yes, it is okay for a number of people to get married to each other at the same time. The only issue anyone can draw about that is how taxes would work out. New codes and laws would need to be created, and I’m not sure how that would or should go. But on the moral question, there is no doubt: there is nothing wrong with polygamy.

Frothy then got a little weird:

The student answered that [people] should [be allowed to do what makes them happy] as long as no one was harming anyone else. Santorum countered, raising his voice and asking, “Who decides if they are harming other people? Is there an objective standard?”

Wasn’t it Frothy who told people they needed to make positive arguments in order to defend their positions? If it is his contention that people are harmed by gay marriage, then he needs to say why. I have yet to see a remotely convincing argument for that position. Ever.

Santorum continued, but threatened to end the discussion, telling the crowd, “I’m going to give people one more chance and then we are going to move on. I’m going to ask the question again. If three people happen to get married based on what you just said, what makes that wrong and what you said right?”

“That’s irrelevant,” the student responded. “My personal opinion is, ‘Yeah go for it,’ but what I’m asking [is] for you [to] justify your belief and your high morals about all men created equal-”

At that point, Santorum cut off the student and, for the third time, asked, “What about three men?“

Emphasis added.

Politicians tend to be pretty good when it comes to rhetoric. They certainly misstep, but they’re still better than the average Joe when it comes to this stuff. That includes Frothy. Except in this case. Using good rhetoric means, in part, appealing to one’s audience. If he was speaking to a bunch of sexually immature, sexually insecure Evangelicals, then sure, mention the idea of three men having sex. That would gross them out. “Icky!”, they would think. But saying that in front of a bunch of pro-equality college students is going to fall flat. In fact, it just made him look even worse.

When he wrapped up, several questions later, the crowd loudly booed him.

I think Frothy still has some learning to do. Maybe he should look to his biggest opponent. After all, I’m sure Romney wouldn’t have had a problem saying whatever would have please the crowd.

Filed under: Politics and Social, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Next Page »