As any frustrated social-religious conservative, paleoconservative, or libertarian will tell you, the Republican Party is first and foremost the party of the established big-business interests and will do whatever they want. Any defense of it must begin by defending that, and on terms persuasive to the majority who don’t have trust funds and stock options.
Ask Iraqis. Ask the Panamanians. Ask Iranis as we regime changed their democratically elected government and put in the Shah.
Why not change yours to one that’s stunningly original like Red Shirt?
First of all, every political party (yes even the Democrats) have a radical group that advocate things the mainstream would never accept. The radical environmentalists on the left destroy expensive equipment to prevent logging and other forms of eco-terrorism. PETA harrasses animal control personnel including vandalism and death treats in the name of protecting animals all the while participating animal euthanasia themselves in addition to throwing paint on people wearing fur.
But this is what others have pointed out. I think the problem is that the Religious Right has been in control of the Republican Party for the last two decades, thus that is the public face that is portrayed. There are progressive Republicans that are moderate on a lot of issues such as pro-choice, Federalism, care for the environment, no prayer in school, etc. Up until a couple of months ago, McCain was a moderate but as we see, his courting of the Radical Right has brought up torture, the Iraqi War, etc. and not his more moderate views.
I guaranty that if the Democrat officials started espousing some of their more liberal ideals (free abortions, radical environmentalism, indoctrination in schools [as a teachers is see a lot of other teachers that run an anti-Republican/pro-Democrat classroom]) etc. AND as elected officials incorporated those ideas as public policy, then we would be having this discussion in reverse viz. assuming there were no moderate Democrats.
Because it’s a reference to a character named “Der Trihs”.
Then perhaps find a new character with a name that’s easier on the eyes. 
BTW…
I meant the previous post to be humorous. If you took offense, I can’t blame you and I apologize.
And you don’t think the Democrat party is? You can add big labor to the Democrat’s list of major influences, but they’re just as firmly in bed with corporate America as are the Republicans. They just want you to believe that they aren’t.
I’ve already asked in this thread for a cite that the Democratic Party supports animal rights’ activists destruction of private property. Since you fail to provide one, I’m going to assume you have no idea what you’re talking about. But while we’re here, I would also like a cite that the Democratic Party supports vandalism or death threats. Somehow, I think it won’t be coming. :rolleyes:
Let’s take these one-by-one. Free abortions: there is a large contingent of the Democratic Party that believes in universal health care, which would include all medical procedures, including abortions. If you are unaware that many Democratic Party politicians hold this position, then your ignorance about the Democratic Party is so large, that no one should pay attention to anything you have to say about that party.
Now, as to the next two issues, I would like a cite that the Democratic Party supports “radical environmentalism” (whatever that is) and forced indocrination in schools (whatever that is).
What you’re trying to do here is simply take any radical agenda and stick it into the Democratic Party. But keep it up. The demographics of the younger generation are decisively swinging towards the Democratic Party, and it’s because all people like you can do is try to nonsensically compare them to eco-terrorists.
BG, I have to agree with Sam here. Democratic politicians (especially the Blue Dogs) are very in bed with narrow corporate interests, and I think it’s going to take a lot of work to root that kind of influence out of the party.
You know BrightNShiny, it is abundantly clear that you did not really read my post but rater pulled out isolated phrases to bitch about. I NEVER accused the Democratic Party itself of radical ideology. I instead accused MEMBERS of the Democrat Party of radical ideology.
I pointed out that IF the Democratic Party started implementing the radical ideologies of THOSE MEMBERS as public policy similar to what the Republicans had done the last twenty years, then people would start attributing radicalism to the Democratic Party.
Lastly
Yes I was aware of that. I am also aware that you apparently refused to read the word “if” in my post and last time I checked, despite controlling the House and the Senate, the Democrats have NOT made universal heath care public policy.
Next time read a post before you criticize it.
So, no cites then? Ok. I’m sure you’ve convinced the OP.
I don’t need to cite the straw men you twist my argument into. Just admit you misread my post since I quite clearly never made a statement about the Democrat Party as a whole, but rather people who are Democrats.
Or just continue to demontrate (that means show) that you don’t know how to comprehend a sentence above a fifth grade level. I don’t really care either way.
Uh, no. You are disingeniously trying to conflate animal-rights terrorists with the Democratic Party. And you’ve been called you on your BS. If you want to convince people that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY supports animal-rights terrorism, then post a cite, or stop spewing nonsense.
Let me spell it out for you AGAIN
Does this say the Democratic Party supports eco-terrorism? No.
Does this say that certain groups of people that are Democrats support ecoterrorism? Yes
I even gave credit that mainstream Democrats do not accept these more radical beliefs. Reread that again - I DISTANCE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS A WHOLE FROM THE MORE REACTIONARY ELEMENTS WITHIN THEIR OWN PARTY. In my post, I even complemented that the Democrat Party was able to stay more mainstream and not cater to the extremists, something I wish my own party would do.
If you can’t learn to figure out that when people are discussing subgroups that they are NOT making comments about the whole group, then maybe you should have someone help translate the posts for you.
You’re the second one mentioning PETA. But are they actually leftists? That’s a genuine question. I didn’t know they had any political agenda besides animal rights. I wouldn’t have been the slightest bit surprised to learn that they had extreme-right members, for instance.
And let me spell it out for you again. Either post a cite that these eco-terrorists are Democrats or quit saying it.
The OP is trying to determine who to vote for. There’s no reason to bring up eco-terrorists in this thread unless you are trying to conflate Democrats with eco-terrorists.
Word. I’ve known some fairly radical environmentalists, though I don’t think they did eco-terroism. Every single one of them utterly despised the Democratic party, as much or even more than the Republican party. Some of them were thrid-party supporters, others were anarchists or simply non-voters.
Ok, so if we’re distancing the Democrats from all the extreme elements of the left, and we’re talking about only the Democrats as a party, then you have to do the same with Republicans.
And you’ve also made it clear that we can’t bring up anything older than the past decade or two.
So… in that time, how have the Republicans ‘endorsed violence and bigotry’?
By the way, in the OP’s quote, Der Trihs referenced “The American Right” as being uniquely supportive of violence and bigotry, not ‘The Republican Party’. That’s why I posted the contrast to the American Left, which some here then proceeded to define down to be the Democrat party so they could ignore all the violence that does come from the American Left.
But you certainly don’t get to limit the comparison on the left to mainstream Democrats, and compare them to every stray nutbar on the right. So we either split the spectrum down the middle, and compare the left side to the right side, nuts and all, or we compare the Democrat Party to the Republican Party.
Ok, so let me get this straight. The “American Left” includes non-violent, anti-war hippie-dippies, yet at the same time, it includes violent eco-terrorists. And the “American Left” includes anti-government anarchists, but at the same time, it includes totalitarian, government-controls-everything, communists. And all of these conflicting ideologies are related to the Democratic Party. Is that correct?
Yes, I agree that the proper comparison is between the parties themselves. The OP thinks that the Republican Party is violent and anti-gay. If you think otherwise, dispell him of the notion.
Yes. As they say, it’s a big tent.