Comments by
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on May 29 at 12:25 p.m.Suggest removal
1.
So you begin this column with the argument that democrats aren't really the most diverse, pluralist party because all they really love is the "black vote"... Then you say that polls show women, black Americans and minorities vote mostly democratic. And then you simply say the Republican Party has gained momentum among diverse groups with absolutely no sources to back up this claim.
Next, I was expecting you to give evidence of the Republican Party's supposed embrace of diversity. But instead you just give a synopsis of the political positions of the Republicans who participated in the first "presidential debate." And then a synopsis of a few who aren't running, and then you simply mention a few who haven't decided to run.
You don't explain how any of this proves your argument that Republicans are not "close-minded rubes."
Are you suggesting they aren't close-minded rubes because there is at least one principled libertarian who believes in legalizing all drugs? If you are, then say so. Giving a quote from Paul that he said during the presidential debate doesn't back up your argument at all.
Are you suggesting Herman Cain's presence proves Republicans aren't "close-minded rubes?" Is this because he's a former CEO with little to no political experience? If you are, then say so. However, he's a very poor example if you are suggesting this. You say he's a strict Constitutionalist who admits he has "a difficult time appointing a Muslim to cabinet." If you're making the argument that Republicans aren't close-minded rubes, I wouldn't suggest pointing to one openly discriminatory to Muslims as an example. Actually, it's arguably this kind of bigotry that keeps most Muslims from voting Republican. Muslims have conservative values when it comes to social issues like abortion and gay marriage, and they actually endorsed Bush pre-9/11. But after the 9/11 attacks, widespread discrimination pushed the majority back to the Democratic Party.
If you chose Cain because he happens to be a black conservative, you have failed.
Posted on March 30 at 4:10 p.m.Suggest removal
No no no no no
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_E...
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/...
Posted on May 3 at 12:15 a.m.Suggest removal
Yeah, I wonder why people, after watching a movie that cost the GDP of a small country to make, didn't turn around and start a green revolution.
Stupid people.
Posted on April 27 at 10:31 p.m.Suggest removal
and way to go for the election board prematurely declaring ally and zac the winner instead of following the UOSA constitution and declaring a runoff. What an incredible slap in the face. Giving someone false hope and then crushing it.
Posted on April 27 at 1:55 a.m.Suggest removal
Great article Coker. This is something that has been needed to be said for a long time. Right-wing libertarians like to describe themselves as strict constitutionalists because they think it was the greatest document ever written, but they don't realize it was written by guys who thought it was a good idea to, as you say, disenfranchise 80 percent of the population.
We need an updated version that accurately represents 21st century values.
Posted on April 15 at 1:42 a.m.Suggest removal
I can't wait for the uprising against the obvious depiction of the Tri-Delt becoming a stripper.
Posted on April 15 at 1:40 a.m.Suggest removal
So marriage originated with Christianity and not a single other religion or culture? Marriage dates back to pre-history, and same-sex marriages weren't a problem in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Japan, Egypt, China, Southeast Asia, Australia, India, South America, and the list goes on.
Indeed, the religious history of our country stems from one particular religion that wasn't too happy toward same-sex marriage, but if we're basing this on a literal look of the Bible, why don't we make polygamy cool again? The system of monogamy as the norm in Christianity only extends back about 150 years or so.
We need rationality in these arguments because it is the fundamentalist, literalistic approach to the Christian Bible that restricts rationality. Gay marriage was outlawed in the Old Testament, but so were a hell of a lot of other crazy things. In the New Testament, homosexuality is only preached against afterward by Paul. I guess Jesus never had time to say the homosexuals were all going to hell.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on May 29 at 12:26 p.m.Suggest removal
2.
Then you cite Rick Santorum, "a straight-line Republican and Christian, is a firm believer in traditional marriage and unabashedly pro-life." Um... don't you realize that this very descriptive is exactly the reason some might think the Republican Party is made up of close-minded rubes? He wants to legislate morality based on his Christian ideals, disregarding the diverse religious and nonreligious beliefs that make up this nation. He wants to deny the gay population its basic civil rights and wants to, it seems, completely prohibit abortion despite the many complex biological and women's rights issues that surround it.
Then you go for Tim "Powlenty" (it's "PAwlenty"), and simply say he's had to "compensate" for previously pushing cap-and-trade legislation, along with other initiatives that would have *gasp* required some governmental regulation. Are you suggesting that these are "liberal" positions that a normal Republican wouldn't take and that's why Republicans aren't close-minded rubes? If you are, and I hope you are not, then say so.
Are you suggesting that Republicans aren't close-minded rubes because one of them is openly gay? If you are, then say so.
You can't just say "The Republicans running for the 2012 presidency are truly diversified" simply by laying out a couple of their political positions. Tell me HOW and WHY that makes them diversified, because it seems most of them are just spouting the same old talking points, some a few more conservative than the others.
And PLEASE, how are they not acting in accordance to a label? GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE. Right now, to be Republican, you basically have to ascribe to a list of beliefs (anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, small government, low taxes, a disregard for the science behind global climate change, a belief in American exceptionalism, etc.). How is this fighting for the good of our nation? I'd like to see an argument backed up by points, which is exactly what this column utterly FAILS to achieve.
And work on your spelling, dude. Seriously, Tim "Powlenty" and a "devote follower of God" (it should be "devout").
And your last sentence isn't a sentence.
"Sage A. Mauldin... is a political and cultural commentator." Really? I honestly couldn't tell.
On