Republicans: continued

[pErvinalia]

He just regurgitates right wing talking points. What anyone replies with is just ignored for more of the same right wing talking points. The latest is communists, left wing extremists and Sam Bankman Freid (spelling). I wonder what it will be next week?

[JimC]

Evil left wing corporations such as Apple, Microsoft and the Bank of America!

[Cunt]

The 'both sides on a mission from god' schtick is particularly ridiculous coming two posts after the article showing that the new Republican Speaker of the House is an open Dominionist. Yapping about 'far left extremists' in the Democratic Party (always conveniently unnamed) while the Republicans have put in a leader who's pushing for a theocracy.

Yes. No-one can name the 'far left extremists'. Even you.

It is your thesis, the burden of evidence is yours. If you believe that there are far left extremists in the Democratic Party it is for you to support that claim. You could begin by delineating what you believe to be 'far left extremism.' We could look at the progressive members of the Democratic Party, like Tlaib, or Ocasio-Cortez. In my opinion they aren't far left extremists, but maybe you think differently. If so you could list the beliefs expressed by these people that you think show them to be far left extremists.

When I think of far left, I think of anarcho-syndicalism and Marxist communism. No Democrat expresses that sort of political philosophy. Your mileage may vary, but it's for you to explain what you mean.

I remember when it was suggested that the best place for criticism of Islam would come from muslims.

But the whole left wing, AND you, cannot describe the 'far-left-extremists' because of reasons we are left to guess at.

I just described what I see as far left.

But let's remember that you've decided to harp about 'far left extremism' in a thread about the Republican Party. Why is that? Are you unable to address the actual Christian Dominionism that is ascendant in the party?

I guess those are what you think of as far left extremists then. Communist marxists. I don't know what those anarcho-syndicalism folks are, but can certainly accept that you think they are far left extremists, and remember that.

I don't know what 'Christian Dominionism' is, either. Not a big fan of any of the religions, myself. They have shit music and weird rules.

[rasetsu]

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=Christian%20Dominionism

[L'Emmerdeur]

I guess those are what you think of as far left extremists then. Communist marxists. I don't know what those anarcho-syndicalism folks are, but can certainly accept that you think they are far left extremists, and remember that.

I don't know what 'Christian Dominionism' is, either. Not a big fan of any of the religions, myself. They have shit music and weird rules.

Reply pertaining to the Democratic Party posted in the relevant thread. You could do your own research (including reading the article about Johnson posted above) but FYI: 'Who are the Dominionists backing conservative candidates?'

“So (the Dominionists’) endgame is creating a Christian kingdom on earth while we’re still alive.”

Ending abortion, gay marriage and secular education are cornerstones of the movement, says Clarkson, a senior research analyst with Somerville-based Political Research Associates.

“It’s their idea of righteousness and what God requires of them,” he says. “The only legitimate education is through the lens of the Bible as they understand it.”

“They talk about Christianizing the public space. They talk about getting rid of demons,” [Sarah] Riccardi-Swartz, [an assistant professor of religion and anthropology at Northeastern] says.

“It’s really about spiritual warfare,” she says.

“They see themselves as warriors fighting not just demonic forces but people. Because they see people as demonically possessed by the spirit of whatever is in opposition to them.”

“Really, what they’re talking about is cleansing the public sphere of people who are not like them,”

[Cunt]

I guess those are what you think of as far left extremists then. Communist marxists. I don't know what those anarcho-syndicalism folks are, but can certainly accept that you think they are far left extremists, and remember that.

I don't know what 'Christian Dominionism' is, either. Not a big fan of any of the religions, myself. They have shit music and weird rules.

Reply pertaining to the Democratic Party posted in the relevant thread. You could do your own research (including reading the article about Johnson posted above) but FYI: 'Who are the Dominionists backing conservative candidates?'

“So (the Dominionists’) endgame is creating a Christian kingdom on earth while we’re still alive.”

Ending abortion, gay marriage and secular education are cornerstones of the movement, says Clarkson, a senior research analyst with Somerville-based Political Research Associates.

“It’s their idea of righteousness and what God requires of them,” he says. “The only legitimate education is through the lens of the Bible as they understand it.”

“They talk about Christianizing the public space. They talk about getting rid of demons,” [Sarah] Riccardi-Swartz, [an assistant professor of religion and anthropology at Northeastern] says.

“It’s really about spiritual warfare,” she says.

“They see themselves as warriors fighting not just demonic forces but people. Because they see people as demonically possessed by the spirit of whatever is in opposition to them.”

“Really, what they’re talking about is cleansing the public sphere of people who are not like them,”

Sounds like religious fanatics, as viewed by someone free to criticize them.

“Really, what they’re talking about is cleansing the public sphere of people who are not like them,”

Imagine the kerfuffle if some author wrote that about another religion...

[JimC]

You are caught in a bit of a bind, Cunt. I know that you are an atheist, but a good chunk of the right-wing conservatives whose agenda you support are not only religious people, but ones who consider it their duty to impose a Christian religious regime on everybody else. They truly are the Christian Taliban...

[Cunt]

Well, I'll worry about it as much as I do in my normal life, where people are religous nutters of every kind whatever my preference.

As to jesus freaks, I could say, of them:

“Really, what they’re talking about is cleansing the public sphere of people who are not like them,”

Would you dare say such a thing about other religions?

Or are the christian religious nutters the best at taking criticism?

And just because the dems talk about it less, doesn't mean they don't have their own irrational beliefs.

[JimC]

Would you dare say such a thing about other religions?

Of course I fucking would. Islam still has a strong tendency in many parts of the world to demand it be given total respect, and that it be a national religion, enforced. Religious overreach is everywhere, and needs to be opposed.

You still are trying to wiggle out of your dilemma that there is a huge intersection between the right-wing beliefs you espouse, and the rantings of Christian fundamentalists...

[L'Emmerdeur]

In using there are always two.
The manipulator dances with a partner who cons herself.
There are lies that glow so brightly we consent
to give a finger and then an arm
to let them burn.

excerpt from "Song of the Fucked Duck"
Marge Piercy

I agree that the average Trumpist voter is complicit to some extent in Trump's lies. I was looking at it from their side--the story they've learned to tell themselves to justify following such an obvious pile of dogshit.

[Cunt]

Would you dare say such a thing about other religions?

Of course I fucking would. Islam still has a strong tendency in many parts of the world to demand it be given total respect, and that it be a national religion, enforced. Religious overreach is everywhere, and needs to be opposed.

You still are trying to wiggle out of your dilemma that there is a huge intersection between the right-wing beliefs you espouse, and the rantings of Christian fundamentalists...

Can you be specific? I don't see what dilemma you mean.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Sounds like religious fanatics, as viewed by someone free to criticize them.

Yes, and you apparently agree with at least some of their policy positions, while attacking those who oppose them.

“Really, what they’re talking about is cleansing the public sphere of people who are not like them,”

Imagine the kerfuffle if some author wrote that about another religion...

That's just BS. It's been open season on religiously motivated excesses within Islam in most of mainstream media for decades and rightly so. Yes, there are pearl-clutchers who cry 'Islamophobia' at the drop of a hat, but they're not particularly influential. It's certainly not the case that Islamists get a free pass in mainstream discourse. There is an element who're ridiculously zealous in their critique of Islam in general as well.

To the extent that anybody is paying attention, there has also been pretty much universal condemnation in mainstream media of the Buddhists' genocidal approach to the Rohingya (Muslims) in Burma (Myanmar). You're perpetuating another canard when you claim that Christianity is the only religion it's 'safe' to criticize.

[pErvinalia]

It's all right wing (Christian) talking points. There's no critical thinking.

[Brian Peacock]

Would you dare say such a thing about other religions?

Of course I fucking would. Islam still has a strong tendency in many parts of the world to demand it be given total respect, and that it be a national religion, enforced. Religious overreach is everywhere, and needs to be opposed.

You still are trying to wiggle out of your dilemma that there is a huge intersection between the right-wing beliefs you espouse, and the rantings of Christian fundamentalists...

Can you be specific? I don't see what dilemma you mean.

That's probably because, through repeated exposure, you've integrated the fundamentalists' religious perspective, rhetoric and agenda into your secular outlook. The bind Jim raised for you is that if your political ideals all came true tomorrow the authorities would police you according to those fundamentalist religious requirements regardless of your secular leanings. I understand that you might think this is a price worth paying.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Add to the catalogue of Republicans' hypocrisy re: 'Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children!'

'Tennessee Republican Argues Federal Funds to Feed Schoolchildren Should Be Performance-Tested'

A Tennessee Republican state lawmaker is arguing federal funds to feed school children from low-income families should not be accepted unless it can be proven that the program will increase test scores.

GOP Rep. John Ragan, who has a history of targeting school students from low-income households, told the legislature’s Joint Working Group on Federal Education Funding he was concerned about “tying ourselves to the federal government,” and inquired about the amount of “waste” in the federal program, according to a video clip posted by The Tennessee Holler. The Working Group’s purpose is to determine how the State of Tennessee can reject $1.8 billion in federal education funds.

...

The Joint Working Group on Federal Education Funding was appointed by embattled House Republican Speaker Cameron Sexton and Republican Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, and is comprised of six Republicans and two Democrats from both the House and Senate.

Its purpose is to “review what funding state and local governments in Tennessee receive from the federal government, how the funding is used, whether the state could provide the same services, and whether it would be feasible to reject the funds,” according to The Tennessean. “Tennessee receives $1.8 billion in Title I, IDEA, and other federal program funding each year, which support low-income students, students with disabilities, and school lunch programs.”

But The Tennessean also reports the Working Group’s members have been tasked not with whether to reject the funds, but “with recommending a strategy for how to reject the federal funds.”

...

Responding to the video clip of Rep. Ragan, [Representative Gloria] Johnson, a retired special education teacher, wrote on social media: “Sure, because how do we know kids with food in their bellies perform better? (there is research for that.) How do we know kids with speech problems improve w/speech therapy? (Research for that too.) Guess 7 yr olds need to prove to him they’re working for those meals.”