What preachiness? The preachiness that the Republican party has been trying to shove down other’s throats because THEY (the Repubs) don’t approve of those people’s lifestyles and viewpoints. Preachiness like wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade even though the majority of the country doesn’t want that to happen. And worse still, some (not all) Republicans want to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape, incest or where the health of the mother is at stake.
That’s injecting YOUR beliefs/mores (which happen to be in the MINORITY) into other people’s lives, and they resent it. Oh, and worse still, being willing to elect a complete incompetent to the office of the presidency because they agree with you on a silly social issue like this.
Preachiness like wasting time on stupid social shit like trying to get the 10 Commandments posted in schools. WTF??! Separation of church and state, anybody?? They may not be the most harmful lines ever written, but why the fuck should one group’s religious proclamations be shoved down the throats of others??
Where – on – EARTH did I ever say I wanted to "legislate how much religion someone should express?? Nowhere. You, I, politicians and everyone else are free to express their religion as much as they want. BUT, if you’re a politician running for office, you might just find that people who don’t have the same beliefs that you’re so certain of start to resent you preaching your mores to them and trying to impose your mores on them through LEGISLATION.
See? That’s the problem.
As I think Bill Maher pointed out when he was talking to a Senator from some southern state, it bothers me that someone who believes in a talking snake is in a major position of power to affect legislation in this country.
It bothers a lot of people.
You and everyone else have every right to have your beliefs, to express them and to celebrate them. Just don’t expect to get ELECTED (at least to the presidency anytime soon) if you keep shoving them in people’s faces and trying to LEGISLATE in close accordance with them.
W. may have gone to Yale and Harvard but everyone who went there along with him will tell you that he was basically just skimming by. Regardless of Ivy League pedigree, my point about “best and brightest” was about more than schooling pedigree – it was about overall intellect, intellectual curiosity and ability to express things, including their own (hopefully well thought-out) ideas in great detail and clarity.
It is and always has been painfully clear that both W. and Palin fail MISERABLY on all of those fronts. Bush once stated that he wasn’t much of a “reader,” and it always showed. He has no intellectual curiosity, and he illustrated that when he went about ruining the world piece-by-piece because he can’t comprehend the concept of nuance (among other things).
Bill Clinton, for example (whose politics I disagree with 99.8% of the time) – putting his politics aside – is the polar opposite of that. So is Barack Obama. Each one of them could have a three-hour, one-on-one conversation with you, with no notes, about foreign policy, healthcare, the economic crisis, the global AIDS problem, etc. and ASTOUND you with the breadth and depth of their knowledge on those subjects.
Bill Clinton especially, despite my personal distaste for him on many fronts, is ASTOUNDINGLY intelligent, and this comes across in in-depth interviews with him.
The Republicans need to drop the redneck “let’s appeal to the lowest common denominator (who don’t like smart people)” bullshit and find someone of that intellectual and executive capability. (Only one who of course believes in true fiscal conservatism and strong national defense – oh, and LEAVE IT AT THAT).
Of course things other than bible-thumping contributed to the Republicans’ loss tonight – Bush let spending get out of control, he’s been botching 2 wars, they never had a consistent message, etc.
But the very idea that someone wants to nominate the likes of Sarah Palin (?) to fix everything for the party?? THAT’S the problem that the bible-thumpers cause in this party, which you’re not seeing – they’re willing to nominate someone JUST because she’s evangelical like them, and agrees with their social mores, even though she’s completely and utterly unqualified for the job. THAT’S the problem we got when W. was nominated in 2000, and you want to go through THAT again?
Do some people never learn?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
In addition to lower spending, lower taxes and less government, I would add less preachiness, less bible-thumping, less divisiveness and less bigotry. In other words, smaller government in ALL respects. That includes keeping their noses the fuck out of people’s private lives and religions (or lack thereof, as the case may be).
Preachiness? Like what?
Bigotry? Like What?
Bible Thumping? When?
So you want to legislate how much religion someone should express?
Fuck the 1st amendment much?
We’ve seen what happens when you elect a know-nothing incompetent simply because he tows the “pro-Jesus” line and he “seems like a guy you’d wanna’ have a beer with,” ignoring all other areas of relevance to the job of being president: Said incompetent goes on to ruin the world.
Never again.
So a Yale grad with a Harvard MBA is now a know nothing?
Being “Pro-Jesus” has dick to do with why the republicans lost. It has everything to do with selling the electorate up the river.
The last thing a conservative movement needs is people with your fear and bigotry trying to unite anyone.
What the fuck? [/quote]