Latest Pew Study finds Republican party shifting fast to religious radicalism

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Could it be that you are me?

If you ask that you should get checked for multiple personality disorder.

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by gi_dan2987

I'm sorry that we disagree

Don't be sorry about having a different viewpoint. Having a different viewpoint then someone is a part of life. The trick is to be courteous when you talk to someone who has a different viewpoint then your own.

[August]

I question the accuracy of the poll. No way can less than 2000 people accurately represent the opinions of nearly 300 million.

[Skybird]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

Originally Posted by August

I question the accuracy of the poll. No way can less than 2000 people accurately represent the opinions of nearly 300 million.

If you wish to challenge the survey for what it is then challenge the survey for what it is. If it is a measure against the earlier survey then it is a measure against the earlier survey, no more and no less.

There has been no shortage of self identifying Republicans(and libertarians) on this forum complaining about the swing towards and the growth of the religious right in the party.
There is certainly no shortage of Republican politicians and candidates calling for creationism and "intelligent design" to be taught as science.
That may well be a pretty strong indication that the survey is accurate(as far as it goes).

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And what do you call what the political paraiste do to the people? One could argue, that Bismarck introduced his social reforms (and effectively invented the social wellfare state) at a tiem when growing capitalism and the corresponding spread of wealth threatened the self-declared Fuhrer elites with a people that became increasingly free, liberal, and non_depending on politician's governing over them. Because they got lured back into obedience and submission to the state which nursed them and fed them. The same tactic as today.

That such a "freedom" can only be had at the price of Rousseau's reasoning, who wanted a total maximum of state and a total minimum of individualism, in essence declaring the state an absolute that replaced the individual freedom - that is something that many people today completely overlook, or ignore - or, if they have a heart beating strong for totalitarian collectivism, actively desire.

It's about power, Neon, and control. Not about ideals. Capitalism and free market is what emancipate people from their state masters' control and command. Non monopolised trade between free people, with no monopoles on prices or government control, robbery and power. Govenrment are unneeded parasites. Not more. There service is to suck your blood. And for that service they blackmail you for protection money. And when you pay it, they still hang on you, sucking. And send you into a war, maybe. Or a paper money currency that devalues your property. The property that you still are allowed to hold, and got not expropriated of.

Governments and politicians are as much needed and as useful as hemorrhoids in the anus. What is needed is a population educated in understand what the nature of real money is, and what economy is. With that knowledge, people can negotiate their bartering and trading, independently, freely, and self-responsibly. A nightmare for politicians. Their total uselessness and anti-social nature would immediately be so obvious for all to see . No more free ride. No more privileges for no merits. No more living by claiming to solve problems that one has caused oneself.

That's why Bismarck introduced the social wellfare legislation. Right at the time in history when Western people on a grand scale had the chance to become free from their self-.proclaimed leaders. What an unbelievable coincidence!

You cannot trust business to have the people in mind, I could list a hundred pages of examples of just how brutal and psychopathic bushiness is. Capitalism did nothing of what you are claiming, it did not liberate the individual, it enslaved them even more to the system than ever before in history. Almost everyone became a wage slave, bound and owned by the company and discarded without a second thought. Capitalism is the key thing that sparked Marxism in the first place, because of the sheer brutality of the system. It is also responsible for the massive shift in wealth over the last 100 years to the elite few. Capitalism makes its money by exploiting the people to the maximum extent it can.

Everything needs to be balanced out and a really functional society needs a bit of everything. When I speak of government, I speak of one that is accountable to the people, and acts in the best interest of the people and country. In a sense, I speak of what the founding fathers of the United States tried to form. But to do that politicians need to be incentiveised to work for the people. You need to outlaw business (The money people) having control of politicians or the government. That is where the corruption comes from.

Again I suggest the three videos I posted earlier. They may be a bit idealistic, and the big question would be how to get to what they are proposing, but I think the suggestions make a lot of sense.

[Skybird]

Sounds as if you are talking about the abuse of capitalism, stemming from monopolistic positions of actors who then indeed became powerful. All true. And even then - general wealth levels rose nevertheless, for the rich and for the poor. In the medieval, peasants and slave farmer were worse off, I would say. There is no romanticism to be found.

The problem is monopolism, and the huge size of community units and administration systems. They are too huge as if people would be able to avoid monopole holders by just evading into a neighbouring community, because the next community is not two or three villages away, but two or there nations, or continents.

Politicians want to get elected, they crave for powerful positions, and for that they promote gold and candy falling from heaven, and who has to pay for it? The money printer (debts, money devaluation), and the citizens they cheat (protection money, and more debts) . If you, as you did, claim they are the lesser evil than monopolists, than you trade anthrax for ebola.

Statelessness, a million small, minimalistic communities is the answer to make both evils smaller in size and bring them down to a scale where you can actually avoid them, battle them, control them. Only then local politicians cannot claim the power and control over nations and continents, only then monopolistic producers or power holders can be avoided by moving just some miles away into another city where they handle things differently. And that means cities, local regions must be independent form any central governance, to be free to do it like they want. If they all are part of the same nation and government, then nothing changes, and you have no chance to evade that government.

Governments must be small, not big, lacking power, not having a monopole on power. Due to politicians always necessarily turning any democratic regime into a socialistic tyranny and planned economy, you cannot put your trust in "democracy". It is doomed to fail, always. The mob demands, the politicians promise, both leads to unhealthy finances and dreamdancing economic policies, state wants more power, state plans more, regulation of markets, planned price fixing next, expropriation by currency devaluation, planned economy, et voila - there you are. Give it some time, it always will go this way, and it always has gone like this in every democratic Western country since WWI flushed monarchies away and replaced them with democratic republics. It always must lead to totalitarianism, because socialism is totalitarianism by essence and nature.

the suggestions of how state and society shall be - it is well meant, but totally disrespecting the grim realities. Those craving for power are not like that as if they will allow that. those having monopoles, will not give them up. Capitalism must be kept on a short line in that it can only be prevented from turning into monopolism if implemented in somewhat small community cells, the mere diversity of communities preventing the establishment of monopoles, because the more diversity there is, the more alternatives for the people to evade monopolists. Balancing it all, planning it all, that is all nice and well, but you fall for the classic trap of intellectuals in the west: to think that you can PLAN such things. You cannot, if there is one outstanding message from this set of ideas named Austrian economy, than this: you cannot plan human people, human acting, prices, market events, demand. The market, as if by miracle, does all this itself if you allow people meeting on it and participating freely in it. Those who have something of value, skills or items, will succeed in finding a partner with whom to barter. Those who have not, either adapt by learning and developing said skill or work to get items to trade (even money, that is: a normal trading good), and those who do not adapt and do have something valuable to contribute, will depend on working for others instead - and then again joining the market events, because by their employment they get items of values: currency quantities (=coins). Which are a traiding good.

Prevent monopoles, yes. But also prevenhjt polticians, and worse: prevent poltians gainign cintrol of the money and turning it into paper fiat money. That is the road to toal and complete disaster. Thes epolticians can only live when chnagign towards paper money and debt rising, and brainwashing people for socialist ideas so that they vote them. One should not allow these anti social parasites to unfold their destructive acitivities.

It's all around us. Right now. Forget what you believe to know. Open your eyes, and see. It's all laid before your eyes. Unhidden. Clear. Obvious. The ways we have chosen, are the ways into our doom. Doom that we have seen before in recent history, its been just 1-2 man-live that socialism and nationalism formed the unholy alliance after republicanism won WWI, and communism was a able to abuse the weak condition in Russia to enthrone itself and call itself the Soviet Union. Nobody prevent us to learn from this. We refuse to learn all by ourselves.

Stupid we are.

In capitalism (not to be mistaken with monopolism!), wealth must be distributed unequal, that keeps motivation, competition and creativity alive, and in general, everybody is better off. In socialism, all are equally poor, and no personal motivation survives.

the great role of Europe in history was made possible because its immense diversity (something that the totalitarian socialists of the EU totally ignore). that begins with the fruitful competition for talents in science arts and philosophy between cities and dukedoms in the German territories, and leads to the Italian city states. Add to this the competition between small villages and town communities who were separated by geographic obstacles like valleys and mountains. This was the mixture that did not completely prevent corruption and abuse, no. but it produced an overall raise in wealth and cultrual production and intellectual life of which almost everybody benefitted and that led to some of the cultural monuments that until today illustrate the greatness that once was there and that has led to the most advanced, profound, unique and precious achievements on behalf of human rights, freedom and dignity in the history of ALL mankind - no other global region ever pushed these qualities that we value so much to the levels our forefathers once had.

And we throw all that away? For a false religious stupid cult like socialism? Because that is what it is: a stupid religion, focussed not on the afterlife but the here and now and assuming paradise could be enforced by planning it, enforcing collective obedience to the plan, and planning economy and all that planning mania. How f#cked up is all this? Read a bit of Rousseau, and then you get a taste of how twisted and porked it all is, Rousseau is so very much alive these days, and that is a tragedy (no wonder he had mental issues and was paranoid, if I would have thought these things, I would have turned insane, too). The more the Judeo-Christian tradition ahs been pushed back, the more the spiritual vacuum has been filled by the left ideology, by Marx and Lenin and the like. Everybody knows that I am no friend of religious superstition and supremacism. But I know dam n well that people have an existential hunger for meaning, for a sense and reason in their lives, and religions address this hunger. they may play foul, but as long as the crowd does not become aware of that, it functions. How many more disasters are needed before the crowd realises that socialism and planned economy also is such a foul play? Historians count 100 millions minimum having been fallen victim to socialist regimes in the past one hundred years. Some more critical thinkers publish lists that calculate numbers three times as high. But we celebrate defenders of such bloodshed and barbarism like Che Guevara, and dance in the streets (during Vietnam) singing Ho-Ho-Ho-Tchi-Minh...? We must have a deep-rooting desire to destroy ourselves.

When will it finally be enough of this madness, and we sent career politicians and socialism to hell where they already are awaited?? Only religions maybe have caused more misery and suffering in man's history than this poisonous melange of actors and ideology. But at least they produced nice architecture and paintings and music, at times.

Don't trust monopolists. But do not trust politicians either. They are holders of the most powerful monopoly there is!

[Admiral Halsey]

Anyone else wish Teddy "Trust Buster" Roosevelt was in office?

Originally Posted by Skybird

Statelessness, a million small, minimalistic communities is the answer to make both evils smaller in size and bring them down to a scale where you can actually avoid them, battle them, control them. Only then local politicians cannot claim the power and control over nations and continents, only then monopolistic producers or power holders can be avoided by moving just some miles away into another city where they handle things differently. And that means cities, local regions must be independent form any central governance, to be free to do it like they want. If they all are part of the same nation and government, then nothing changes, and you have no chance to evade that government.

It is at that point where the pure fantasy of your latest ideology becomes completely undeniable.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And that means cities, local regions must be independent form any central governance, to be free to do it like they want.

So what stops a couple cities or local regions from putting another city or local reason to the sword?

For instance what can the people of Potsdam do to stop a future belligerent Berlin from invading and sacking them?

This is the fatal flaw in your theory. It ignores human nature and human history.

[Armistead]

The religious right could very well hijack the GOP and make it impossible for the GOP to run a moderate socially liberal person that is also fiscally conservative. Guess we'll see when and if someone like Christie runs. Abortion is here to say and gay rights are here and coming, if the GOP wants to keep making issues out of such and run candidates that are against such, forget national office...

Anyway, I see us as a nation more divided, voting the same life long nuts back in as we usually do and gridlock the future...I'm to the point I would like to see a bunch of clowns in congress....those with the big shoes and red noses...

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

Anyone else wish Teddy "Trust Buster" Roosevelt was in office?

You know that Theodore Roosevelt disliked being called "Teddy" right? And he went both ways true he did bust up trusts but he also broke union strikes as well.Of course the trust busting only meant that large corporations simply found ways to avoid being considered a trust.

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

You know that Theodore Roosevelt disliked being called "Teddy" right? And he went both ways true he did bust up trusts but he also broke union strikes as well.

Still did more good then bad.(Also if there ever was a perfect war president it would have been him.)

[Stealhead]

What makes you say that? There where no major American wars during his time in office so we have no way to judge how efficiently or poorly his performance would have been.On top of that in all reality the President is only a figurehead military leader the Joint Chiefs are the ones who make the real military plans.

Side note he was the only Rough Rider with a horse in Cuba.

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

What makes you say that? There where no major American wars during his time in office.

Well for starters his dedication to our navy. Plus factor in his war service and the fact there were no wars during his presidency.(Probably because they were to scared to take him on.)