Time for a change, Dems.

[Squink]

@minty green

I am not going to wallow in whiny self-pity, I am not going to blame it all on the people who were doing their damnedest to prevent this shit from happening, and I am not going to take my ball and go home because 51% of the country won’t play with me.

It’s looking easier by the year for the dems to peel off a few points among the fiscal conservative crowd, and with the passing of the millenium, hysterical religiousity ought to be cooling too. Add that to the worsening healthcare, and employment problems, and the dems should be in fine shape in a couple of years.

[Rubystreak]

@minty green

One election. One of two. That he became president after the first was a result of many things, but “the will of the people” was not one of them. Similarly, had Kerry squeeked out Ohio, he still would have lost the election, even though he would have been president.

It doesn’t matter, ultimately, because the Bush agenda HAS been approved and further mandated by this election.

But how’s this for an explanation, if you prefer: For three out of the last four elections, the voters have rejected the Republican agenda.

I think you’re wrong, but OK. I see evidence of the Republican agenda all over the damn place. I sure as hell don’t see my agenda or the agenda of the hordes of liberals I know anywhere either.

The lost Senate seats were in hard-core red states, and the three seats they picked up in the House were entirely the result of Tom DeLay’s gerrymandered redistricting in Texas. Not to mention that the Senate pickups for the Pubbies were, more often than not, by awfully thin margins.

Rationalize it all you want. The Dems lost this election in a much more decisive way than in 2000. The balance of power has shifted right yet again, despite what the Dems and MoveOn.org are calling a huge get out the vote campaign. If this is the best we can do, that’s a failure any way you slice it. What do the Dems have to lose by returning to their roots as the Republicans have so successfully?

No fucking shit? You mean like gaps narrow and widen pretty much every two years? Definitely time to panic, I see.

I’m not panicking. I’m calling for a change in the Democratic approach since this one’s not working. I’m pissed off but not hysterical. Don’t know where you’re getting that from, because it’s an unnecessarily condescending mischaracterization you’re getting from your own mind, not my posts.

Eleven, I believe. No surprise, either, if you’ve been paying attention to the pretty obvious fact that Americans oppose gay marriage by hefty margins in every state in the country. Even Massachusetts. The question is what to do about it, not how best to whine about it.

Where do you see whining? My entire OP was a call for action by the Democratic party, concrete recommendations for shifts in policy and direction. That’s not whining, honey, that’s constructive criticism.

Oh, I pay plenty close attention, sweetie. I mourn for what’s about to happen to my country. But goddammit, I am not going to wallow in whiny self-pity, I am not going to blame it all on the people who were doing their damnedest to prevent this shit from happening, and I am not going to take my ball and go home because 51% of the country won’t play with me.

Grow a spine. Then use it to stand up to the bastards.

I have a fucking spine. I am standing up to the bastards. Where are you getting that I’m not? I’m pissed off at the Democrats, who I think have dropped the ball in a most spectacular fashion AND who have betrayed their core constitutents time and time again resulting in no material gain. I’m not taking my ball and going home (what would that entail anyway? expatriating? voting Green? committing suicide? I’m not sure what you mean, unless you’re just saying that to be mean). I’m asking for meaningful changes that I think will help the Democrats to succeed and move the center closer to the, um, CENTER. You can disagree with me if you want, but calling me a spineless whiner is just bitchiness, and it’s uncalled for and unsupported. If you like the Dems just the way they are, then I’m happy for you. I’m not and I think the state of our current government is plenty reason to want a change.

[ExTank]

@Rubystreak

I hear the American people suddenly care so much about “moral values.” Why not remind them where the moral high ground really is-- with love your neighbor (even if he’s gay-- yes, just fucking SAY it!), with the Constitution, which guarantees separation of church and state and seeks to “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” What about beating swords into plowshares? What about “a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man will enter the kingdom of Heaven”? Turn the Republican’s own rhetoric on them; cite chapter and verse when necessary. It’d be easy as sin if only the Democrats found someone with passion and vision and… actually gave him the nomination! No more bloodless old-money prigs. Give me a person full of piss and vinegar, damn it!

These are your words, Ruby. You call for sepapration of church and state even as you quote scripture side-by-side with the preamble to the Constitution.

@Rubystreak

It means no prayer in public schools, no governmment funding of religious private schools, no banning abortion because it goes against your religion (if you don’t like abortion, don’t have one, and if you’re so interested in preserving life, then I guess you’re against the death penalty, but let’s not go there, shall we?), no Ten Commandments posted in courthouses. I don’t think those are radical. Neither does the Supreme Court, but your president will probably change that. Doesn’t make it right or radical, though.

Oh really?

No, it doesn’t. It’s an interpreted judicial doctrine, not the words ot the First Amendment. Judicial doctrine, especially activist judicial doctrine, can be reversed. In this case, it would be a return to satus quo, not a revision of the original wording of the First Amendment.

FWIW, I’m pro-choice and pro-death penalty.

@Rubystreak

Give me one example of my ignorance.

I did already. Took me less than a minute of Googling.

[Stoid]

Ruby, you rock.

Lets say it and sing it and chant it and email it it and phone it and TELL IT AND TELL IT AND TELL IT.

[Rubystreak]

This from a guy who doesn’t know the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution. :rolleyes: Biased citations fail to sway me. Students can vote silently, privately in school. Who could actually stop them? But no, you cannot have open prayer in school. Get over it.

You also just cannot wrap your head around the fact that, and I repeat, ***you can be a person of faith, and talk about faith in a political campaign, while not legislating your morality. * ** Do you understand that? For every instance the right-wing uses Scripture or God to justify bigotry, war, and imposing their “moral values” on everyone, the left could also quote Scripture contraindicating those beliefs. Jesus would not approve of homophobia, my friend. He wasn’t a big fan of rich people either, nor of people who proclaimed their righteousness on street-corners.

The Republicans’ use of God to justify oppressive, violent, or narrow-minded policies is hypocritical. Counteracting that with citations from the same book would only highlight the absurdity and the fact that the values they claim to derive from Scripture are not actually Christian values. Those values are love, tolerance, generosity to the poor, healing the sick, and taking care of the children. I’d like to see a sincere Democrat of faith and conviction face the Republican hypocrisy head on, using the same tools to a positive end, so we can go back to the business of making decisions based on the values set forth in the Constitution, not the Bible.

[Rubystreak]

I meant to say “pray in school,” not “vote in school.” :smack: I guess students can vote in school too-- they did at mine, and elected Kerry in a landslide. Gives me hope for the future. But that’s a different thread.

[ExTank]

You’re right, I goofed in this post; I knew it was the preamble to the Constitution; I can’t type fast and think at the same time. So sue me.

But you seem to have failed to notice that I caught the error (a typo, nothing more) in this later post.

I concede that you can hold deep religious beliefs and yet be an ardent separatist. It’s almost contradictory, but I suppose no more so than my being pro-life philosophically, pro-choice politically, and pro-Death penalty both ways. But:

@Rubystreak

You can talk about God all you want, just don’t try to legislate your beliefs.

Show where I have advocated any such thing? If you’re going to rebut my arguments, at least rebut the arguments I actually make. This logical fallacy you have conjured is called the Strawman fallacy.

I also goofed in my C & P; I cited an amicus brief that caught my eye as interesting instead of the original “Separation” case, to wit I now give you;

EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

Nowhere does this say that every single reference to God or religion has to be stripped from public buildings, legal tender, or public discourse.

This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty under state compulsory education laws, send their children to a religious rather than a public school if the school meets the secular educational requirements which the state has power to impose. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R. 468. It appears that these parochial schools meet New Jersey’s requirements. The State contributes no money to the schools. It does not support them. Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools.

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.

How we got from the above to people thinking that religion has to be entirely stripped away from anything relating to the government is beyond me; it takes a lawyer to think that convolutedly.

(Psst…minty, are ya still pissed at me fer telling you off in that one thread? I didn’t mean anything by it, honest.)

[Muad_Dib]

@This Year's Model

Remind me. How large a percentage did the Republican candidates get? It seems to have slipped my memory.

Remember that we had a bigger third party spoiler in Perot then you ever had with Nader.

[ExTank]

Which might be an indication of how ready the GOP is to split into multiple parties as soon as we get tired of the “same old, same old.”

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

ExTank–

This quote:

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

from the Everson vs. Ewing B of E case you cited above seems to imply that yes, in fact, every single reference to God or religion does have to be stripped from public buildings and legal tender. (Not public discourse, of course, because the public is free to say whatever they wish about religion.)

[ExTank]

As several lawyers have stated here on the SDMB over the years: pulling one sentence out of a lengthy discourse of a legal opinion is a bad idea.

[Liberal]

Dammit, Minty. Pull your head out of your ass. You lost the presidency. You lost the House. You lost the Senate. (Five more seats and you won’t be able to filibuster.) You lost ballot initiatives all over the place, including anti-gay amendments in eleven states. You lost all these things because you’re unable to read a “You’re Fucked” sign from twenty feet away. With any luck, your party will find an articulate leader to tell you people how to think. Until then, try to minimize the damage you’re causing by shutting the fuck up.

[ExTank]

Uhm…Lib? Are you in the right thread, here?

[Rubystreak]

@ExTank

You’re right, I goofed in this post; I knew it was the preamble to the Constitution; I can’t type fast and think at the same time. So sue me.

I won’t sue you but I will point to your ignorance, just as you try to point to mine.

[quote]
But you seem to have failed to notice that I caught the error (a typo, nothing more) in this later post.]/quote]

Oh for the love of God, give me a break. It wasn’t a typo, since you typed it twice in your second post. You only corrected yourself after I pointed out your error. Who do you think you’re kidding when the thread is right here? Just admit you screwed up and don’t try to spin it. Everyone makes mistakes, but you started in with the sarcastic, ad hominem shit when my intention in posting the OP was to criticize my own party, not get into some partisan debate with a Republican. Though I loathe what your party stands for, I cannot help but admire your recent successes. I’d like to see the Dems be more successful by using those tactics against you. That’s fair play and no cause for your nastiness. I realize this is the Pit, but you came in here looking for trouble.

I concede that you can hold deep religious beliefs and yet be an ardent separatist. It’s almost contradictory, but I suppose no more so than my being pro-life philosophically, pro-choice politically, and pro-Death penalty both ways.

I hold deep spiritual beliefs and respect for the teachings of Christianity while being an ardent separatist. I believe that separation is a pillar of what America stands for and why it exists, and as such I wish for it to remain a robust part of the Constitution and our government. I am not so narrow-minded that I want to eradicate religion in public and governmental fora, but no one religion or ethos should be favored wholesale over the public good or individual rights and freedoms. I am also pro-life personally and abhor the idea of abortion for myself, but pro-choice politically, because I realize my morality is subjective and personal. I am also not gay but don’t want to deprive gays of any rights or privileges accorded to other citizens. Why can’t the vast majority of Republicans do that? I don’t understand.

Show where I have advocated any such thing? If you’re going to rebut my arguments, at least rebut the arguments I actually make. This logical fallacy you have conjured is called the Strawman fallacy.

In the portion of my post you cite, the “you” to whom I was referring was the Republican leadership, who seeks to legislate its phony morality all over the place by invoking the name of God. You tried to call me a hypocrite for citing Scripture while calling for a separation of church and state. I was trying to impress upon you the fact that it is possible to do both simultaneously without contradiction. It’s not a straw man to say that I want the Democrats to model the concept of being spiritual/religious yet not legislate that morality, to quote the parts of Scripture that teach love, tolerance, peace, charity, and forgiveness, if just to show that God is not the exclusive domain of the right wing, and that moral values do not have to mean oppressive, exclusionary public policy and culture war with Muslims. IOW, your personal beliefs were not the topic of my discussion when I said that; your accusations of my hypocrisy and my accusations of Republican hypocrisy were my target. You are carting out your own straw man by trying to make this about your beliefs. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Nowhere does this say that every single reference to God or religion has to be stripped from public buildings, legal tender, or public discourse.

Oh, straw man, straw man. Where did I ever say anything about legal tender? And I advocated discussing true Christian values in the public discourse, the ones mentioned above that would call for tolerance. As for public buildings, hey, a 9-member Court of the Judiciary unanimously ruled that Roy Moore’s 10 Commandment plaque was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, which was upheld by his 8 colleagues on the State Supreme Court (the US Supreme Court refused to hear it, and that’s the last word on it), so take it up with them if you don’t like it. I’m going to trust their judgement over yours, though.

Mentions of God are one thing; claiming to have a lock on what God wants and then turning that into law are another. One is perfectly normal and part of most people’s lives; the other is oppressive, scary, unConstitutional and unAmerican.

How we got from the above to people thinking that religion has to be entirely stripped away from anything relating to the government is beyond me; it takes a lawyer to think that convolutedly.

I never said it needed to be stripped away from anything related to government. Hey, how 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow? There’s straw men all over the damn place tonight.

Bottom line, I think the Democrats are fuck ups and got a much-needed wake-up call in the 2004 election (shoulda gotten it in 2000, but some folks are slow learners). I want them to learn from their mistakes and become stronger by emulating the Republicans’ strengths and capitalizing on their glaring weaknesses. For some reason you felt the need to accuse me of being a nutter while also showing your own ignorance (and making excuses for it) and fabricating my position as you go along to suit your argument. Clearly this is some bone you have to pick and you’re projecting it onto this thread. I wish you’d stop. I’m not actually pissed off at the Republicans over the outcome of this election, I’m pissed at my own guys, so I have no bone to pick with you. Or at least I didn’t…

[Rubystreak]

And I fucked up the coding, again. Jeez. Ex-Tank, I think we both need to go to bed. We can argue about this again in the morning if you want, though I have to drive 4 hours to go to funeral tomorrow, so hey, you might have this thread all to yourself soon. Yeah, it’s been a groovy week for Rubystreak (it even rhymes!).

[Liberal]

@ExTank

Uhm…Lib? Are you in the right thread, here?

Yes.

[ExTank]

Sorry, Lib. I gotta give my eyes a rest; I missed the middle third of an entire post I was responding to earlier.

It just seemd like such a non-sequitur without some quote tags to reference it.

My bad; I’m off to bed…

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@ExTank

As several lawyers have stated here on the SDMB over the years: pulling one sentence out of a lengthy discourse of a legal opinion is a bad idea.

But pulling six sentences of of a lengthy discourse of a legal opinion is a good idea?

I never claimed to be making a bona fide legal opinion. I was just pointing out that part of the part of the decision that you quoted seemed to forbid quite clearly any government funds being used to support ANY religious activities or institutions WHATEVER they are called.

This covers a whole lot of ground, and doesn’t leave a lot of room for interpretation. Even a non-lawyer can see that.

[ExTank]

You took one sentence and tried to expand it into an entire legal doctrine (in your defense, subsequent courts have done precisely that, so you’re not the one on shaky legal ground here, I am).

I pulled several paragraphs that I felt best summarized the entire ruling: that tax-payer dollars going to reimburse parents for the cost of public transportation to-and-from religious schools is not a violation of the first amendment.

So an activist judicial system took an out-of-context quote and a few phrases from a narrow ruling and spun it into a legal doctrine with no constiutional basis for support.

What I’m saying is that they shouldn’t have. The Jefferson quote was out of context; he wasn’t commenting on jurisprudence or constitutional doctrine when he made it.

That’s what I’m saying.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

ExTank– since all of this is sort of a hijack anyway I am totally willing to let it all go. Besides, I agree that some separation of C and S stuff has gone too far. Like that little cross on the seal of the City of Los Angeles. OTOH, I don’t think our currency should have “In God We Trust” on it becuase that favors one (or a few) religion(s) and is insulting to Americans who don’t agree with those faiths.

I’ll just leave it there.