Phx-Suns.Net

Dan H wrote:I'm glad Storify is out there, I was considering posting about this, but didn't want have to wade through hours and hours of Tweets to lay it out.

https://storify.com/smaulz/national-divorce

here is a pragmatic value to liberalism-- liberalism permits strongly-disagreeing peoples to live among each other peacefully.

@AceofSpadesHQ
if we no longer have this sort of liberalism--if the left is determined to simply "win"--then we shall no longer live together peacefully

Goes from there. Thoughts?

It does go on...I read through some, but I lost interest pretty quickly since it's clear that the tweeter is making some pretty huge assumptions about liberals in general, calling them "the left," and jumping from that to say that everyone on "the left" wants nothing to do with his group. And he agrees, directly stating that he doesn't want to live in a country with "the left" (or rather, liberals in general, even though the ones he's talking about are of the extreme variety.

I won't accuse you of cherry picking his tweets, Dan, since you only grabbed the two at the top, but come on, it was only down a few lines:

TheClassyLife @AceofSpadesHQ
I think it's pretty clear the left no longer wishes to live peacefully among us, and, for my part: The sentiment is shared.

TheClassyLife @AceofSpadesHQ
we should probably being discussing the inevitable division of the country.

And remember: *We* did not press this.

By "we," I assume he means all the totally rational right-wing nutjobs who think like he does.

TheClassyLife @AceofSpadesHQ
I don't wish to hate the left any longer. Hate is an unhealthy emotion. I want them to be free to pursue their socialism as they like.

TheClassyLife @AceofSpadesHQ
And i want the rest of America freed from them.
9:54 PM - 25 Apr 2015

That's about where I lost interest. What about your thoughts, Dan? Did you think this guy had anything interesting to say? I'm not seeing it.

(I read further anyway.)

OK, so as he goes on, he plays the innocent pretty well. Almost like he's the martyr.

Seriously...where's the story here? It's the passive aggressive ranting of a guy who doesn't want liberals in his country, and who thinks they all hate him. I don't hate him; I just think he sounds like an idiot.

He's a libertarian who's lived in Manhattan for ~20 years or so. So color his experiences with that brush. I think the main thing that tipped him off was the fawning coverage of the White House Correspondent's Dinner while there were actual riots going on in Baltimore. If not for Twitter and other new media you wouldn't have known it was happening had you stuck with CNN/Fox/etc.

More here:

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=356400

As far as my personal opinion of his stance - I don't think it's possible. It's all well and good to point to the partitioning of India and the break up of Czechoslovakia, but we're not so easily geographically divided. The left right paradigm in this country generally tends to be rural/suburban versus urban. I do think we're seeing an organic partitioning; see the mass exodus from the northeast over the past decade or so along with the boom in people moving to places like Texas. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/north ... le/2554143)

I think there's a natural human inclination to not want to be around people who are actively working against your interests. At the level of a town or a state it's easy to avoid those types of situations but that's not so much true for a country. Then again we're seeing a spike in people renouncing their citizenships, as well. But that of course brings forth a fundamental question - if someone doesn't want to be bothered by a regional majority's plans and goals for society, and demographics makes voting a moot point, walking away seems to me to be a fairly reasonable response. But the tendency all too recently on the left has been more along the lines of, "You don't care? That's not an acceptable moral position, we will MAKE you care, and in the right way, or you will be destroyed."

Perfect example:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/27/two-g ... i1ewf:lzTq

A charity group that raises millions of dollars annually to fight AIDS has canceled a fundraiser because the gay guys who own the club hosted a reception with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

To be clear: There is no evidence that these two men, Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass, have given any money to Cruz. The reception was not a fundraiser. In fact, Reisner's donation history shows him giving thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party. He has also given money to Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. He also gave money to Republican Rudy Giuliani when he ran for president back in 2008. He's not entirely a single party donor, but he is definitely focusing on Democrats. Weiderpass has a very similar donation history.

But that's apparently not enough. The two men hosted a meeting with Cruz, as The New York Times reported last week. The purpose of the meeting appeared to be to talk about Israel, but they did push Cruz on his position on gay marriage.

Andy, there's only so many times you can be called an Unperson of Jesusland because of your beliefs or associations before you start to get jaded.

I read those posts and all I can think is that a brain is a terrible thing to waste. I am pissed off at Republican's actions for the past decade or so and have vowed to never vote for another one, but that doesn't mean I hate half of America. Half my relatives are Republican. My best friend is a Republican. My brother is a Republican. My parents vote Republican. My wife's best friend is a Republican. My old aunt that I take care of is a registered Republican that stopped voting Republican a few years back.

All this talk of splitting up the country and the big war between the party's is STOOPID. I think those being the most vocal about it are actually excited at the prospect like a guy gearing up for the zombie apocalypse secretly really wants it to happen. They really have no idea what they are saying, but it excites them. Fortunately I think there are plenty enough SANE people left in the country where this won't happen.

This is precisely why I HATE FOX News. They intentionally fan the flames of hate and that is the OPPOSITE of being patriotic IMO. Yes there is MSNBC that is pro Democrat, but they have 22 viewers and aren't anti everything government like FOX is. They both should have a bias rating like movies.

These people are all sheep being led around and they don't even know it.

Nodack wrote:I read those posts and all I can think is that a brain is a terrible thing to waste. I am pissed off at Republican's actions for the past decade or so and have vowed to never vote for another one, but that doesn't mean I hate half of America. Half my relatives are Republican. My best friend is a Republican. My brother is a Republican. My parents vote Republican. My wife's best friend is a Republican. My old aunt that I take care of is a registered Republican that stopped voting Republican a few years back.

And guess what? There are certain people right on this board who think your friends and family are (edit)infected(edit) because of that R.

Don't get me wrong, at this point the theory is nothing more than a thought exercise but the older I get the more appealing a cabin in Alaska or something where I don't have to deal with people becomes.

Dan H wrote:

Nodack wrote:I read those posts and all I can think is that a brain is a terrible thing to waste. I am pissed off at Republican's actions for the past decade or so and have vowed to never vote for another one, but that doesn't mean I hate half of America. Half my relatives are Republican. My best friend is a Republican. My brother is a Republican. My parents vote Republican. My wife's best friend is a Republican. My old aunt that I take care of is a registered Republican that stopped voting Republican a few years back.

And guess what? There are certain people right on this board who think your friends and family are evil because of that R.

Don't get me wrong, at this point the theory is nothing more than a thought exercise but the older I get the more appealing a cabin in Alaska or something where I don't have to deal with people becomes.

To whom are you referring? Does anyone here really think people are evil if they are on a different side of the aisle?

My bad, not evil, 'infected', I remembered the quote wrong.

To whom are you referring? Does anyone here really think people are evil if they are on a different side of the aisle?

I do think at times that certain entities in the Republican Party are evil. Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind.

I won't attempt to address everything you brought up, but I do see a lot of the points you are making.

Regarding coverage of the WHCD, ok, you can write that off as liberal media bias. But I view it as the press just picking their options. First, coverage of the riots would almost CERTAINLY skew liberal. I would say without a doubt. The dinner, while in reality a minor affair in all things, is one of those calendar events that they always cover and nobody really cares about. It doesn't reflect a tipping point in any way. It just shows that our third party, the media, sucks in its current form.

Regarding your opinion on the feasibility of what he wants, I completely agree. I also think you expressed reality far more cogently than anything I read in his tweets. But this...

But the tendency all too recently on the left has been more along the lines of, "You don't care? That's not an acceptable moral position, we will MAKE you care, and in the right way, or you will be destroyed."

Perfect example:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/27/two-g ... i1ewf:lzTq

A charity group that raises millions of dollars annually to fight AIDS has canceled a fundraiser because the gay guys who own the club hosted a reception with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Umm. No.

You have said, yourself, on this board, numerous times that the market should work things out when it comes to the issue of [insert issue here]. That's the ideal scenario in your mind, as I understand it.

This is the market doing that.

The fact that the owners are gay doesn't matter. If a group doesn't want to be associated with someone who has, in any way, supported issues that are antithetical to what they stand for, they have that right. It's the First Amendment. It's not about destroying someone.

Andy, there's only so many times you can be called an Unperson of Jesusland because of your beliefs or associations before you start to get jaded.

I'm an atheist, and I can promise you that I get called an Unperson IN Jesusland far more than you get called the other. Be jaded, that's fine. Less than 10% of the population doesn't like your policies, and yet still supports your right to your opinion; well, that sucks. Half of the population thinks I'm evil. I feel so bad for you.

Yeah Dan, there are a whole lot more people that do believe in religion than don't and most of those people think Atheists are evil. I am a non believer too and it's almost more taboo than being gay in society. My relatives in N.D. are heartbroken that I am not a Republican. It would crush them if they found out I didn't go to church too. You being persecuted for being religious Dan isn't going to get much sympathy from me either.

Nodack, you misspelled "you FEELING persecuted." I hate to be one to call out typos here. But Christians in America are not persecuted in any sense. Unless being asked to play by the same rules as everyone else is persecution. [Ed. Note: It's not.]

And yes, I know what you meant, I just felt snarky, and not at you, Nodack. Or Dan, for that matter.

I wasn't speaking of personal persecution at all. I'd much rather be a Christian (or atheist, honestly) in the United States than anywhere in the Middle East.

I don't see that group being boycotted as supporting Cruz at all - the guy's a candidate for office, and they supported an event where he spoke on issues unrelated to their other issues. And yet, almost as though he's an Unperson, we can't allow anyone to be infected by his thoughts on other issues, because he does not think the Right Things. Sorry, I didn't think that's what we should be all about. Do we want to live in a society where everyone has to agree on everything, at every time? Be careful what you wish for, in such a society we'd probably be forced to Spurs fans, or some other big-market ideology.

I disagree with Bill Clinton on a lot of domestic policy, but if he were to speak at an event I was at, I would be interested to hear his thoughts on whatever the pertinent subject was. Same goes for Obama, Bush, etc. Would some people on my side want to boycott the event? Probably, and I'm the kind of person to say something about it to them, also.

I am a non believer too and it's almost more taboo than being gay in society.

Nodack, I hope you aren't too crushed by the fact that in most churches they spend a microscopic amount of time talking about atheists and gays. Obviously your family will be different because they're your family, but it's very much not a point of focus.

An awful lot of hate for liberal groups, people, media... but not a single policy position you mentioned. The crime of those groups was their status, apparently.

I think I've been pretty clear that I dislike Republicans because of policy. They're *technically* wrong on so many things. You mention the urban/rural divide, what about the advanced education divide? Republicans get rarer and rare the further up that ladder you climb, because the more educated you are, the harder it is to believe bullshit.

I don't get mad at groups wearing cowboy hats and going to church and speaking with drawls. I get mad at groups that laugh at science, economics and history. You get mad at people you perceive as socialists, but wtf do you even mean by that? I'm flattered that you want to lower my taxes and open up investments for me in destructive industries, but I think it's generally a good idea to take into account the impact of policy on others.

Edit: One thing, though. You're right that many social liberals think social conservatives are pariahs, hence the boycotting. Hard to believe the positions of social liberals won't be vindicated in time. I don't generally get involved in those fights because I don't think they're actually very difficult problems. But race and gender stuff issues are pretty difficult, so I'll argue about those. Gay rights? Who wants to be on the wrong side of that issue?

SO, do you disagree with the groups boycotting Cruz on the merits of their relative positions? This is what I don't get. You've just about completely stopped arguing about policy at this point, and yet you rage on and on. What is the point of politics, again?!? At this time I'd like to redirect your attention back to the evidence I presented about politics being treated like sports...

I went to Ebenezer church a couple weeks ago, where they have MLK playing on a loop. I thought, if people talked like this in churches, I'd consider attending, despite what I've learned about the histories of the religions (in short, they appear to be made up).

No, every Church, almost every Sunday, talks about Jesus, the events that happened in the Bible, or tries to prove the veracity of those stories in some way. That's more than half of what I've heard in Church, and I've attended plenty. Yes, they also talk about real life - maybe a 50/50 split, even.

Fortunately, I don't feel the need to argue about religions. The internet age has arrived, and it will steer the children away from religions over time. We'll need a new sort of institution, and I wonder what form it will take.

By the way, one way for a disease to defend itself is to wall itself off from any possible antidote. Kinda like the way you appear to have blocked me. Don't listen to the liberal's facts and reasoning! It's all a trick!! Saul Alinsky, Saul Alinsky!!!

Dan H wrote:My bad, not evil, 'infected', I remembered the quote wrong.

Got it. So you mean one person.

I don't see that group being boycotted as supporting Cruz at all - the guy's a candidate for office, and they supported an event where he spoke on issues unrelated to their other issues. And yet, almost as though he's an Unperson, we can't allow anyone to be infected by his thoughts on other issues, because he does not think the Right Things. Sorry, I didn't think that's what we should be all about. Do we want to live in a society where everyone has to agree on everything, at every time?

I'm not saying I agree with their decision. But it was theirs to make. Now, let me get this straight (ha)...you support the rights of a business to discriminate based on religion (you said as much regarding GayCakeGate), but you are actually opposed to the CUSTOMER saying no to a business because of ties (or even perceived ties) that they might view as a conflict of interest?

Ted Cruz says a lot of things that are damaging to a lot of people in the country. He's allowed to, and anyone who wants to support him is allowed to. I think your argument is hypocritical; nobody is being forced to think in a particular way. Nobody is asking for that. Not giving someone your business because you don't like groups they do business with is not "trying to destroy them."

Nodack, I hope you aren't too crushed by the fact that in most churches they spend a microscopic amount of time talking about atheists and gays. Obviously your family will be different because they're your family, but it's very much not a point of focus.

It has nothing to do with what you talk about in church. Talk about whatever you want; it would be weird if the purpose of your church was to talk about the evil atheists all the time, but it would be fine.

Who is calling you an "Unperson?" I know, it's nobody here...we might disagree but I think everyone here respects your rights to believe as you see fit. So where is that coming from? It reminds me of the supposed "war on Christmas" that doesn't exist.

I never said anyone personally called me an unperson, but the meme has been around for over a decade.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/jesusland

I'm not saying I agree with their decision. But it was theirs to make. Now, let me get this straight (ha)...you support the rights of a business to discriminate based on religion (you said as much regarding GayCakeGate), but you are actually opposed to the CUSTOMER saying no to a business because of ties (or even perceived ties) that they might view as a conflict of interest?

Ted Cruz says a lot of things that are damaging to a lot of people in the country. He's allowed to, and anyone who wants to support him is allowed to. I think your argument is hypocritical; nobody is being forced to think in a particular way. Nobody is asking for that. Not giving someone your business because you don't like groups they do business with is not "trying to destroy them."

It's funny how the left is all for diversity until it's one of their oxes being gored. Roman Polanski is a fugitive rapist, but we should look past that because he's a gifted filmmaker. Ted Cruz wants to talk about Israel? ERMAGARD, he has the same position on gay marriage as Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama circa 2009? He must not be allowed to speak! Who cares if it's a completely separate issue!?!

HEY HOW ABOUT SOMEONE TALK ABOUT ACTUAL POLICY

if you're not interested in policy, why are you interested in politics?

ERMAGARD, he has the same position on gay marriage as Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama circa 2009? He must not be allowed to speak! Who cares if it's a completely separate issue!?!

Who said he shouldn't be allowed to speak?