What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
312 Comments
- Phylter, on 04/29/2009, -15/+138Here's a joke by Emo Phillips about extremists. Put Rush Limbaugh in the first person.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.
http://cmgm.stanford.edu/~lkozar/EmoPhillips.html - netant, on 04/30/2009, -10/+44Sorry Republicans, but I don't think you get it. Your party does not have Reagan Republicans anymore. Unless you mean the deficit spending, pro-war mongering faction, which I would argue wasn't really what brought voters to the party.
A big component of Reagan Republicans, besides being mainstream in demeanor, is that they were a reaction to the status quo. They would have been content with the liberalism of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter if such gov't worked. It didn't, so they voted Carter out. You Republicans forgot that Bush really f**ked up this country, so the descendants of Reagan Republicans voted against the Republican party.
Even if Obama's measures don't ameliorate the situation, its not like they can look to the Republican party to fix the situation. 1) A "Republican" administration "caused" the fiscal disaster. 2) The Republican party has not presented a credible, alternate solution. 3) Have you guys thrown Shrub under the bus yet? And his standard bearers? No, therefore you're still the party of disaster, and the people who caused it are still leading it. Republicans need a purge, but you're purging the wrong people. You're purging moderates.
Also, Reagan Republicans weren't hostile to immigrants. Reagan's administration passed the first illegal immigrant amnesty.
Reagan never allowed to religious faction to dictate his political positions. Note that abortion wasn't legislated out of existence during his two terms. His administration did not go out of its way to placate that faction by being the forefront of divisive, ideological issues. He may have ignored gay issues (at the time) like AIDS, but he didn't try to pass laws to hunt them down, or prevent them from marrying. Reagan wasn't trying to infuse church and state.
Finally, Reagan's political handlers were not about being "divisive". Sure, they rode in on the "Southern Strategy", but they never went out and seemingly embraced racism. The vicious stuff didn't happen until later. Again, Reagan may have been particularly unsympathetic to gay issues, but he didn't try to make an "enemy" out of them. And back then, it was an important rule, "Thou shalt not speak ill about a Republican", and the party always closed ranks and backed their own. That was the era of Lincoln Chafees, the Bob Doles, and John McCains.
Finally, I believe Reagan would never have allowed the vicious right-wing punditocracy speak for the party. Reagan would have shut down the Limbaughs if they got out of hand. Its not that Reagan would have hated what Limbaugh stood for. He just wouldn't allow Limbaugh to dictate strategy or positions.
Reagan Republicans were the mainstream. They weren't going to agree with everything the party stood for. The Republican party today is not about trying to be inclusive. They chase away the mainstream, with the delusion that only people with think like the right-wing are mainstream. - JimmyTheClam, on 04/30/2009, -10/+43Arlen Specter was a Republican?
Who knew...
FYI to most Diggers: there is a realignment going on inside the GOP between three different factions these days.
The "crunchy' libertarian wing (think Ron Paul like), the old-money East coast types (NeoCons), and the Reagan Republicans, and this is by no means nearing an end anytime soon.
See ya in 2016 when this is done shaking out! - smacksaw, on 04/30/2009, -2/+32I could tell where this was going from a mile away...to the picture of Ronald Reagan shaking Ron Paul's hand, both of them starry-eyed about Barry Goldwater.
Democrats, you've got to think sometimes that for whatever good Kennedy did, there was far more harm by Goldwater not getting elected. The tenor of the GOP totally changed once he was neutralised.
Anyway, I agree with the ultimate point of the article. The GOP needs to make the libertarian shift, cede power back to the states and find common ground with the Democrats on civil liberties. Governors are a powerful thing. If Democrats want to spend lots of money, let the states do it. I don't have a problem with a socialist Massachusetts and a libertarian New Hampshire next to one another. Diversity is what makes this country great. I just have a problem with a one-size-fits-all solution, which is federal programs by the Democrats or federal morality from the religious extreme right wing of the Republicans. - metrodigg, on 04/29/2009, -10/+38I still don't see Snowe leaving the GOP. Even though she has no clout in the party she will continue meekly calling for moderation and reason while getting steamrolled by the Newts, Cantors and Limbaughs.
- inactive, on 04/29/2009, -18/+43Olympia Snow speaks on the seismic shift in the Senate in a NY Times Editorial today and how it's the far rights fault.
- inactive, on 04/30/2009, -9/+29And into which of your three categories do the hyper-religious nutcases fall?
- inactive, on 04/30/2009, -2/+19@JimmyTheClam --
It's interesting that you assumed "hyper-religious nutcases" referred to ALL Christians.
I know plenty of Christians that aren't hyper-religious and don't vote Republican.
However, I don't know any hyper-religious nutcases that vote Democrat.
Oh, and one more thought -- Being atheist doesn't necessarily make one a nut-case. But being hyper-religious does. - Seminarian, on 04/29/2009, -11/+28A well-written and thoughtful piece. I wonder if anyone in the Republican leadership (if there is such a thing) is paying attention.
- haydesigner, on 04/30/2009, -4/+21@ JimmyTheClam: "Which faction of the Democratic party do the nut-case atheists fall?"
I'm sorry, this is just an idiotic comparison.
Show me how where/how *any* atheist is wanting to impose THEIR viewpoint/morals/morés on ANYONE ELSE???
That's the big problem most of us non-"hyper-religious nutcases" have with said "hyper-religious nutcases"... they not only keep trying to tell us that *their* way is the right/only way of doing something, AND they continually try to make it illegal to do otherwise. - inactive, on 04/30/2009, -4/+21"Reaganomics was not based on sound economic policy at all, premised as it was on the "trickle down" theory of how wealth spreads. Critics liked to point out that it led to high budget deficits and provided the political cover to cut taxes for the rich -- invariably "on the backs of the poor."... By whatever name, according to critics, Reaganomics was shorthand for bogus economic policies and the greed of the 1980s."
I read, I learned, I posted. - mah2cent, on 04/30/2009, -10/+27I don't think this is any loss since Arlen Spector has always been a Democrat at heart. He switched from being a Democrat to a Republican before; now he is switching back. I believe he dosn't know what he is but will switch if he believes it will benefit him; not his party or his constituents. I am not a Republican or a Democrat so I don't really care about this issue. I just thought it needed to be said.
- trentrezn0r, on 04/30/2009, -2/+18That's better than reading the article.
- haydesigner, on 04/30/2009, -2/+17@ curunir: "Atheists won't allow religious people to express their beliefs anywhere they can be seen. Pray in school?
- Listen very clearly... you can do whatever you want. JUST DO NOT FORCE US TO DO IT. That 'pray in school' thing is forcing kids to COLLECTIVELY do something. If someone wants to pray during school, go do it a lunch or recess or something. Do NOT try to indoctrinate it.
@ curunir: "Atheists have been on a campaign to remove the word "God" from all public life. They want it out of the pledge, off the money, etc. etc. That's an imposition of religion on everyone - atheism is, after all, just another religion where the starting belief is "there is no God". So all these efforts to stop any public display of religious belief in God (any God of any religion) is an imposition of their belief on others."
- See, you just proved my point, but sadly you won't even acknowledge it. It is the RELIGIOUS ones who have forced all of those things on EVERYONE. The non-religious ones just want it not shoved in their faces all the time.
Do want you want... but do it by yourself.
Don't force it on the rest of us. - inactive, on 04/30/2009, -2/+17He said that the old political/economic theory of this generation, i.e. Neo-Classical Economics is now redundant.
- hobgobbler, on 04/30/2009, -21/+36***** the republicans.
- ProfessorSYM, on 04/30/2009, -7/+22That is the conservatives' problem: always looking to the past rather than the present or future.
Ronald Reagan can in no way help you guys anymore, the *****'s dead. Try putting your enthusiasm behind someone young enough and alive enough to lead your party, instead. - ProfessorSYM, on 04/30/2009, -2/+16What I find hilarious is that the old school Republicans are creating a "Council for a New America" - in its ranks you will find John McCain, Jeb Bush, et. al., and they all report to Eric Cantor and John Boehner.
It would be kind of sad if it wasn't so ridiculous. - parisii, on 04/30/2009, -5/+18the republican party already left Snowe and others like her. republicans don't believe in maximum personal liberty - not with the talibornagains in control. republicans don't believe in limited govt. - look at the intrusiveness of homeland security. republicans don't believe in limited govt spending - they only want to make govt. ineffective for the poor and middle class but kowtow to defense contractors and the other moneyed corporations that fund their elections.
if govt wants entrepreneurs, then they won't tie health care to working for a corporation. if govt wants to be pro-growth, they won't continue to reward big money that obstructs new technologies in energy. if govt wants to promote the greatest liberty, they won't make laws against something like cannabis, that, as a history of that issue goes, shows criminalization was nothing more than an attempt to destroy competition from hemp products for the timber and oil industries.
instead, the republican party is the party of zenophobia and stupidity. - INTERNETMASTER, on 04/30/2009, -14/+27of course they had to "lose" Specter, he was a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Olympia Snowe and Lindsay Graham are the next pseudo Republicans that need to switch parties. there are actually only about 3 Republicans in the senate that are Republican enough to Republicate Rupublicards. most Republicans are just too liberal for real Americans, which are only about 2% of the American population. and about 10% of those are left handed, which raises all kinds of troubling questions.
- BGrifter, on 04/30/2009, -2/+14America has way far lefties? Was there an election in the last 24 hours I missed?
- netant, on 04/30/2009, -2/+14The Republicans need to do three things.
1) They need to learn how to be an effective minority party. If they can't learn the tactics, they cannot prevent Democratic agendas from passing. It looks like they're not going to stop Universal Health Care. The Democrats will have succeeded to bribe enough voters to stay Democratic. And they will keep using gov't to bribe voters with programs, until the Republicans can deny Democratic legislation from passing.
2) Republicans need to redefine themselves, in a manner that makes them more palatable to the INDEPENDENT voter. Right now, they're the f**kers that allowed our banking system to collapse. Instead of making scapegoats and purging them, they presented the solution "do the same thing as the past 8 years". Dumbest message possible.
3) Republicans need to gain back representation in Congress that they lost. How are they going to get back the Indiana's, Pennsylvania's, North Carolina's, and Florida's? You can't count on redneck stupidity to carry you forever.
4) Republican leaders know Reagan is dead. What they don't understand is the tactics they embraced in the past 8 years (the Rove style of "divide & conquer") don't work. - rednip, on 04/30/2009, -4/+16Yea, that's it, keep that attitude, it has served the Republican party well; America, not so much. Moderates like myself have been leaving the party for the past 15 years. Sure, for a while they were able to make even greater gains with the religious right, but the trend crested in 2004.
- newbill123, on 04/30/2009, -2/+14We == Republicans
The editorial is written by Republican Senator Olympia Snowe who is trying to get what's left of her party to recognize the contraction based on religion and morality is pushing the moderates of the party.
Reagan's solution of "agreeing to disagree" on those issues is apparently unacceptable today and has solidified the unpopularity of Republican brand in critical demographic areas considered to be of concern since Jeffords went independent in 2001. - inactive, on 04/30/2009, -4/+16It's important because it gives the Democratic party a strategic advantage in passing legislation. It's a chess move which helps effectively marginalize the GOP in a significant way, further than the last devastating elections.
- haydesigner, on 04/30/2009, -1/+12@Renfamous: "from what I've seen out of liberal diggers, politics is a friggin' cockfight where one party wins and the other should be slaughtered and entirely eradicated."
Wow, talk about transference. - mexretroshore, on 04/30/2009, -0/+11Who cares? The Teabagging Party has been trying to become America's Taliban for quite some time. They're just about there.
- inactive, on 04/30/2009, -3/+14Fine, I'll fight my own battle then.
I said that the old political/economic theory of this generation, i.e. Neo-Classical Economics is now redundant. - JMorrison2103, on 04/30/2009, -2/+13Do you morons even study what Reagan did? Ever heard of the Big Tent? I'm sorry, but this kind of stupidity is what made normal people like me leave the party and why you frackers are facing the political wilderness for close to a decade.
Yes, making the party more close minded and niche for social conservatives is EXACTLY what will bring back middle America! /sarcasm - jthhtj, on 04/30/2009, -4/+15"we?" who's we? i think you mean "you" in the title.
- DangerCollie, on 04/30/2009, -6/+17Well, maybe after they lose enough the Republicans will broaden their message. But that's the problem. They won't really change, they'll just try a different line. Is anyone going to believe a Republican spouting the compassionate conservatism line again?
Not me. - skews13, on 04/30/2009, -11/+21Just as soon as someone in the party figures out that it's not 1986, and ronald reagan is now dead, and informs the other members of the party. They may actually start to understand governing in 2009. Though it may very well be 2016 before they get that opportunity. Better spend the next 7 years studying hard. A lot of things have happened since the turn of the century. The biggest being that governing philosophies of the last century aren't acceptable anymore.
- Dalhectar, on 04/30/2009, -0/+10@thinkb4utype No Atheist is stopping you from praying, assembling to pray, creating organizations around your prayer, etc.
What Atheists oppose is using tax payer resources to support your personal religious choices. Why should my money go to a statue in honor of your religion? Why should my state have sodomy laws because it offends what you think your god or gods wants you to do with your body parts? Whether or not I marry a man, a woman, or stay single has no impact on your religion, or your free exercise of your religion. You don't like homosexuality, then don't have sex with people of the same gender. I 100% support your right to not have gay sex. It's that simple. Just say no. Don't hire male escorts and go on meth fueled buttsex sessions ala Rev. Haggart. Don't play footsie in bathroom stalls with undercover cops ala Larry Craig.
No Atheist wants to take anything away from you. However regardless of my religious beliefs, I don't feel yours should be made LAW. By the way, neither should my religious beliefs be made LAW. If a person can't give me a non-religious reason why any given public policy should be made law, then it shouldn't be on the books. Let god and/or the gods sort out transgressions mortal men and women make against spiritual authority. Let us mere humans live in a manner in which we can follow our individual conscience without transgressing on the rights of others. - SOSHaruhi, on 04/30/2009, -2/+12The GOP is dead if they seriously think the answer is Palin or some ethnic minority to run against the Democrats.
If they want to rebuild, they best be brushing up on their history and return to those "kooky" liberty roots:
- A sound currency NOT based on debt
- A foreign policy of non-intervention (ending the foreign wars and empire mentality)
- A domestic policy of non-intervention (ending the war on drugs and repealing ALL attacks on civil liberties)
- A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and actually mean it
- Heavy regulations not on the people, but on the government and Federal Reserve - Elranzer, on 04/30/2009, -0/+10As opposed to a spend-and-spend Republican? The Republican party is far more Economically Liberal than the Democrats. At least the Democrats' plan is to tax the people (an actual income), the Republicans just want to print more money when they run out (or borrow from China).
- jcr - devophl, on 04/30/2009, -0/+10I think Snowe will stay a Republican because she doesn't face reelection until 2012 and her seat is probably safe even then. Specter was done in PA. The RNC had targeted Specter for ouster in the 2010 primaries and given the ultra-conservatives that vote in the primaries, almost any hard core conservative was likely to defeat him. Specter does have solid support among Democrats in PA even though a possible run by Rendell would have challenged that. But clearly Specter's move was done for political purposes. He wouldn't have won reelection as a Republican and going Independent in a state like Pennsylvania was not an option. His only hope was to switch.
But Snowe's preaching is falling on deaf ears in the Republican party. While she's trying to bring the party more towards the middle, the leadership is trying to accelerate it even farther to the right. The Republican leadership wields an iron fist over all House Republicans and all but 2 or 3 Senate Republicans. Descent is not allowed. Even one vote with the Democrats can cost you much needed backing from the RNC in a reelection bid.
The Republican party is sticking to its hard core, right wing extremist policies. It still believes that the vast majority of Americans are, at heart, conservatives and will jump back on the Republican bandwagon once they see how bad liberalism is. Their greatest fear is that Obama finds a way out of the disaster the Bush administration left. In many ways this is why you continually hear Republican publicly wishing Obama fails because the only way the hard right Republican party can win in future elections depends on the death of liberalism. - vat0r, on 04/30/2009, -0/+9I'm a Maine Democrat and I voted numerous times for both Snowe and Collins. They may be Republicans but they have always done an excellent job at representing us instead of towing the party line. That being said there are definitely things I disagree with them on. My point is that your party is not as important to re-election as the voters who put you in to begin with. If you remain true to those who elect you and stay honest you should be ok. They both have done well remembering that.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/30/2009, -1/+10You didn't LOSE Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party.
You lost the Republican party -- Arlen Specter is just moving to the Middle Right party known as the Democrats. They are mostly corporatists now with a few exceptions.
My God, Nixon would be a far-Liberal Democrat in todays terms on taxes and social supports. Don't even bother comparing Eisenhower -- he'd be a Socialist.
The Corporate media did a great job convincing everyone it was Liberal, while it backstopped Archer Daniels Midland and all the hands off business attitudes that seem like gospel now.
Arlen Specter is not a great paragon of anything. They cart his butt out on every investigation where they need nothing discovered. Other than that, you MIGHT call him Liberal because his voting record is almost rational. Why did Stem Cells become partisan when they just get flushed down a sink? Arlen figures he is going to need those pretty soon with his cancer, which might have had a cure had Bush not been turning it into a religious issue.
The funny thing is, the private industry has no restrictions, and I'm sure they enjoyed all the patents they are going to get. IF the government had supported more stem cell research, the data would be available to all. THAT's what the fight was about. All the "moral fights" of the Republicans have been cover for picking our pockets. - amoro99, on 04/30/2009, -0/+9If you have watched anyone in your family die from cancer, then you know how important martinis can be.
Gin provides strength and comfort when you need it.
Why do teetotalers want to take this away from us? - Cputerace, on 04/30/2009, -1/+9How bout instead of being more liberal leaning, the GOP return to its roots of true conservatism. Most of the comments i see by liberals when conservatives attack Obamas policies simply say "Thats what bush did too", and they are right, but Bush does not represent conservative values... at all. That is what is lost on people these days. You cant point at Bush and say conservativism is bad. You should point to bush and say this is the mess we get into when you are NOT conservative.
- inactive, on 04/30/2009, -3/+11@curunir
Trying to say that atheism is a religion is trying to substantiate an argument that does not exist. A religion is a cult where people gather to worship and pray to a God. Atheists don't gather to worship. You should understand what a religion is before making such pronouncements.
Next, there are religious schools parents can send their kids to that includes religious teachings. Any type of religion does not belong in a public school.
The bible may be the best selling book, but it is also a piece of fiction that is regarded as fact. Not being able to tell the difference is what should keep it away from teachings in a public institution.
My affront to your praying in school, in your wanting the bible in school, in you wanting your nativity scene on public property is that it is your religion's pushing beliefs on other people. There is absolutely no reason you can't keep it in your church.
Oh, wait -- there is a reason. As the cult grows, so does the power and the money. And that is why the church would like to advertise their religion publicly. - 98psuAE, on 04/30/2009, -5/+13I find it almost comical the way the republican party is destroying itself from within without any clue of why it is actually happening.
- JoeMondo, on 04/30/2009, -0/+8Inaccurate.
The base has shifted, with more centrist Republicans ditching the party, or being driven out by extremists.
True, Specter was not popular with the extremists, and would have lost the nomination. But the point is to win the GE, not just the primary. - EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -8/+15I doubt they are listening to what she is saying, unfortunately for them. Senator Snowe is a voice of reason and they would do well to head her warning.
- rottencod, on 04/30/2009, -3/+101. I thought "so-called gay rights" WERE Constitutional rights.. you know, equal protection under the law, etc.
2. The Republicans don't vote for Obama's economic plans. Whether you agree with them or not, you can't pretend both parties are on the same page there.
Also, if abortion is murder, then miscarriage is manslaughter. - TheNik, on 04/30/2009, -2/+9@arkwald: _Doomed_ to socialism? Doomed? Really?
- Bloodwine, on 04/30/2009, -3/+10No, he is just a career politician who switches his party affiliation when he feels it will continue his chances of continuing his career. It's really not any deeper than that.
- CeruleanRed, on 04/30/2009, -0/+7@ thinkb4utype,
I have experienced such a loss, but that is beside the point. First, there is no doubt that faith can make some people feel better, give them strength, and ease their suffering. Presumably the Egyptians took great strength and comfort from a belief that the proper ritual procedures would permit the dead to live in comfort forever. However, surely you can see that the desirability of a belief bears no relation whatsoever to its factual truth value.
Second, atheism has no interest in making you feel bad. As in the old childrens' story, the Emperor surely may enjoy his new clothes very much. And though it may upset him, atheists are merely pointing out the the truth - the Emperor is naked. Or more accurately for us, that the sky-emperor almost certainly doesn't exist. If that makes you feel bad, I'm sorry. Personally, I find untenable beliefs to be more upsetting than possibly frightening truths. Even so, I find the universe is a more wondrous place in the absence of rather flat and human centric religions, and life all the more precious and wonderful for its evanescence. - inactive, on 04/30/2009, -0/+7Umm. That's four things.
And the fourth isn't nessecarily a bad tactic. It's just the Dems were better at building a coalition, of young people, Blacks, Hispanics, Union Workers and disilusioned Republicans. On the other hand, McCain being a moderate (Which is what the GOP needed) divided the Republicans, with the Religious Right being too daft to realise that if they didn't get behind McCain, then they would not win. - Elranzer, on 04/30/2009, -1/+8I hope you're referring to the Mayan apocalypse. Because Obama's reelection is all but guaranteed, especially if you've got a nutball like Palin throwing her hat in the ring.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 318 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is