Karl Rove Creates "Conservative Victory project"... To Get Rid of The Tea Party
82 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thisispain;39468326]that's a civil rights leader, a gay communist quaker, a proto-feminist suffragette, the co-founder of the NAACP, one of the most infamous feminists, an anarchist-socialist linguist, and i think the only openly socialist congressman in like 60 years???
that's pretty far left even by world standards, so id like to hear the horrors they've created[/QUOTE]
World standards? America was far behind the curve in abolishing slavery, so I don't see how our civil rights are radical in that context.
Suffragettes? Wiki again:
[QUOTE]1912 was a turning point for the Suffragettes in the UK as they turned to using more militant tactics such as [B]chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to mailbox contents, smashing windows and occasionally detonating bombs[/B].[9] This was because the current Prime Minister at the time, Asquith, nearly signed a document giving women (over 30 and either married to a property-owner or owning a property themselves) the right to vote. But he pulled out at the last minute, as he thought the women may vote against him in the next General Election, stopping his party (Liberals) from getting into Parliament/ruling the country.[/QUOTE]
Feminism in general has the stereotypical "Femnazis" who view men as inferior.
Communists? You really have no idea what Communist extremists did? Hint: they were called Bolsheviks, and were responsible for the Russian Revolution and the USSR.
Gays I can't really argue with, but that's because there is no real ideology associated with them: they're just people who happen to have a different sexual orientation.
That aside, we can keep playing a game of picking good/bad extremists till the cows come home. What is your point? That not all extremists are bad? Sure, I freely admit that, as I said much earlier:
[QUOTE]Well then I misspoke and oversimplified: what I was trying to convey that extremists can be toxic both to the political system and to discourse, either through their ideas, drastic measures, or their unwillingness to negotiate.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39468439]What is your point? That not all extremists are bad? Sure, I freely admit that, as I said much earlier:[/QUOTE]
my point is that we'd all suffer under extreme right-wingers, and the same would not be true under extreme left-wingers, and to deny that is intellectually dishonest if you consider yourself left-leaning in any way
if you're not left-leaning then fine
[QUOTE=thisispain;39468498]my point is that we'd all suffer under extreme right-wingers, and the same would not be true under extreme left-wingers, and to deny that is intellectually dishonest if you consider yourself left-leaning in any way
if you're not left-leaning then fine[/QUOTE]
So left=good right=bad caveman logic is not intellectually dishonest? Both the right and the left have inspired the worst in people, and to pretend otherwise is willfull ignorance.
you might not agree with it but no i dont think its intellectually dishonest when i consider the fact that (i think even many conservatives would agree) historically radical and extreme left-wingers in this country have done the country good while the same cannot be said of extreme right-wingers
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467249]Maybe the GOP moderates will win and the far-right nuts in their failure will form a new party that will never get elected into office but can still be a vent for them to channel through.[/QUOTE]
There are three ways it can go.
1: The Tea Party will inflate, as Far-Righters flock to it. It is utterly ignored as the mild and moderate Conservatives cut it off like a cancerous tumour. Everyone ignores it, but it remains, occasionally gnawing at the political system.
2: Similar to the previous, the mild and moderate conservatives form their party and cut off the growing Tea Party. The Tea Party collapses and disperses into several smaller parties, which are mostly ignored.
3: The Tea Party inflates, but is not cut off. The new Tea Party absorbs other conservative parties as the milds and moderates flock to independent parties. The Republican party, once the liberal, once the conservative, finally keels over, and is replaced with a whole new beast, the Tea Party.
Finally. Honestly, who actually thought putting Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Mitt Romney in the elections would be a good idea? The Republicans just embarassed themselves in the last election cycle. It could've been much closer if it weren't for the astronomical amount of radicalism they managed to cram through the primaries.
[quote]Feminism in general has the stereotypical "Femnazis" who view men as inferior.[/quote]
Oh god we're doing this fucking thing again
You just quoted Rush Limbaugh nice job
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39468806]Oh god we're doing this fucking thing again
You just quoted Rush Limbaugh nice job[/QUOTE]
Firstly, why start this shit? Did I claim that every feminist is a "femnazi"? I brought them up as an example of radical/extremist feminism. Secondly if I want to quote someone, I'll do it directly.
Radical left wingers are called "anarchists"
They don't get anywhere in politics so the worst damage they can do is arson and such.
Don't pretend these people don't exist.
The people you are calling "extremist left wingers" are not extremists. Extremist left wingers have NOT done this country good. They were the ones bombing police stations during the Vietnam war. I don't think you understand what extremist means.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;39468905]Radical left wingers are called "anarchists" They don't get anywhere in politics so the worst damage they can do is arson and such. Don't pretend these people don't exist. The people you are calling "extremist left wingers" are not extremists. Extremist left wingers have NOT done this country good. They were the ones bombing police stations during the Vietnam war. I don't think you understand what extremist means.[/QUOTE] generally those people are not left wingers in the traditional sense but what are called "lifestyle anarchists". anarchism is a pretty valid form of political ideology, but lifestyle anarchists tend to be less about political change and more about radical insurrection as a choice of life(constant rebellion and such), i think lifestyle anarchism has certain merits to it, but it is hard to equate it with groups like the cnt, internation worker's association, etc. they sort of transcend normal politics because rather than wanting to set up a certain system of economics or governance they simply want to eradicate hierarchy in their life. occupy is the closest thing to an "extreme left-winger" group that has breached into the mainstream, but even then occupy is too varied to really identify them as being extreme in any way, they are a loose affiliation rather than an organization with a manifesto or set vision.
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
and by the way there are political anarchists on the right as well. randian political philosophy tends towards libertarian/anarcho-capitalist. so labeling extreme left-wingers as simply anarchists is a bit misleading when extreme right wingers can also be anarchist.
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
this is of course ignoring the fact that "anarchist" has been a word used by the political elite as a way to attack people anyways. it's like "socialist" in the united states, it's an insult that has been used to imply something that isn't necessarily true in order to dissaude the public from accepting their ideas. if your idea of "anarchy" is chaos or lawlessness then you might want to rethink what anarchism is and how political entities might have misused the word to manipulate; just like if you think socialism means "total government control", you might have been intentionally mislead as well.
It's hard to define "far left" when they don't have any sort of political representation. The type of person that thinks the rich and wealthy and the government should all be killed is a "leftist extremist". They don't exist all that much in America but they exist in history. Then again I just described the people who performed the French Revolution, so I guess that's a matter of perspective.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;39469002]It's hard to define "far left" when they don't have any sort of political representation. The type of person that thinks the rich and wealthy and the government should all be killed is a "leftist extremist". They don't exist all that much in America but they exist in history. Then again I just described the people who performed the French Revolution, so I guess that's a matter of perspective.[/QUOTE] while the far left does not have much political representation in the mainstream of the united states, they have achieved varying degrees of success in other electoral systems. they also organize regardless of whether there is representation. there are anarchist organizations if almost every city, there are socialist and leninist organizations in almost every city. you can definitely get a good idea of what leftism is by looking at these groups and what they believe.
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Socialist_Party[/url]
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
that's a socialist party that i know has a chapter in seattle. if you want to read about them or w/e
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39468806]Oh god we're doing this fucking thing again
You just quoted Rush Limbaugh nice job[/QUOTE]
Actually I've seen these people first hand and my god are they annoying.
One of them told my friend they were conforming to a male-dominated world because she plays PvP games.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39467271]Personally, I'd rather have parties and coalitions disbanded[and outlawed] and have it so you vote for the person and the policies/concepts they stand by.[/QUOTE]
But then elections would be based on faces, personalities, and name recall. You just grabbed the worst trait of the Presidential System and extend it all the way.
[QUOTE=Morcam;39468640]Finally. Honestly, who actually thought putting Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Mitt Romney in the elections would be a good idea? The Republicans just embarassed themselves in the last election cycle. It could've been much closer if it weren't for the astronomical amount of radicalism they managed to cram through the primaries.[/QUOTE]
In 2008, Mitt Romney was considered the "more conservative" candidate. In 2012, he was considered the "more moderate" candidate the GOP had to offer.
If what was conservative back then is moderate today, I expect Santorum to run in 2016 as "moderate centrist" and god help us against whomever is running as the hardcore conservative candidate.
Wait a minute, I thought Rove was one of the major figures in the tea party.
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39470375]In 2008, Mitt Romney was considered the "more conservative" candidate. In 2012, he was considered the "more moderate" candidate the GOP had to offer.
If what was conservative back then is moderate today, I expect Santorum to run in 2016 as "moderate centrist" and god help us against whomever is running as the hardcore conservative candidate.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, Romney did shift a bit closer to the center on economics compared to the '08 election.
I do not like the two party system that's in place. I wish people had no party title and you actually had to pay attention to what they believe in. Just having People just see Democrat or Republican and vote for the side they align with promotes people who are not educated in politics and have no idea whats going on. I want politicians to actually care and hold true to the values they believe in, not bending their beliefs to fit into one of the two parties to garnish more votes.
But that will never happen, so this is just wishful thinking.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39469329]Actually I've seen these people first hand and my god are they annoying.
One of them told my friend they were conforming to a male-dominated world because she plays PvP games.[/QUOTE]
Because everyone knows the first thing the nazis did is chastise people for playing PvP games
do people seriously think that if the GOP collapsed that we'd just have the dems? Did you sleep through the bit of history class where they talked about literally all of american political history?
Every party is in bad shape after loosing an election. They'll come back, to much tied up in the two current parties to have either one go under. I'm not a fan of the social views of the republicans at all, but give the democrats full control and they will wreck the country financially.
It's only because he spent a shit ton of money on them, and they all lost except for one person.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39473037]Because everyone knows the first thing the nazis did is chastise people for playing PvP games[/QUOTE]
Everyone knows independent and strong women play single-player games, 'cause they don't need no man.
[QUOTE=Lazor;39475137]do people seriously think that if the GOP collapsed that we'd just have the dems? Did you sleep through the bit of history class where they talked about literally all of american political history?[/QUOTE]
No, there wouldn't be [I]only[/I] Dems but they would have the majority for quite a while until an opposition can organize itself into a force to be dealt with, which I estimate to take at least 4-10 years after a GOP collapse.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.