When a parasite takes over a host and kills it, and then uses the dead host's body . . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

Who is it when you see the host approach? Is it the host because it has the host's face? Or is it the parasite who controls it and dwells within.

The repubican party is close to being completely consumed by kooks. Displaced "reasonable" repubicans drift in to the Democratic party, one by one, mostly quietly.

At some point, if the current phenomenon continues, reasonable Democrats will leave and drift . . . . where?

If it happens that the Democratic Party starts to officially endorse such positions as the sanctity of marriage, or pro life, of tax cuts for the wealthy and a diminution of union strength, at what point is the host no longer the host, but rather the cloak worn by the parasite?

The United States has had a great run. Some real good was done along the way. Lately, however, I am seeing threads popped at the outer seams. Some of the hems have broken threads. There are signs that the tent is old and stressed, coming apart. Areas of deteriorated cloth have been found that, while perhaps capable of holding a well sewn patch, will either end as a noticeable halted failing or an actual failure of the fabric, a sort of textile hernia through which some vital element can leak out, or worse yet, through which a determined parasite can gain entry.

Things are born. Things grow. Things die. Things mature. Things lose their way. Things grow out of step and irrelevant.

With the drift to the right of society's institutions, with the demand for a "lefter" experience, when the time comes in five or twenty or fifty years, where would the displaced reasonable Dems go when they found they could no longer sleep with the reasonable repubs, even as they might be friendly.

You see, I believe that, over time, the current repub party will see dwellers of Free Republic or Conservative Cave as their liberal wing.

The displaced repubs will be precisely the type in power now in DC. They will eventually move to the Democratic Party where, before them, those described as Rockefeller repubicans moved. They will join with their natural allies, the Blue Dogs and other assorted conservadems to effectively make the party over to be a neorepubican party.

Displaced Democrats will have a clean sheet of paper and dreams.

Or they will infiltrate the Green Party where, finally, there may well be some common ground.

"Welcome! We told you so," will be met with "We knew it was possible that that you were right. You were."

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

1. Hell, they're ALL pod people as far as I'm concerned.

:shrug:

[Richard Steele]

2. K&R

[RandomThoughts]

3. It really isn't about the party, but the system.

If the system is influenced by a certain force, then that force will pull policy its way, regardless of the name of some party or who is in that party. That force can be an ideology, or a thought of what is the way things should be, but many times people do not think on the actual things it wants.

So to correct the system is to correct the issues of what forces intersect with those in many places.

Then there is also pattern behavior, which is why it takes a generation for things to change usually. Even if a force is removed from someone, they still have a trained pattern, sometimes guilt, sometimes ego, that makes it hard to think and feel on different topics. Possibly the vary reason for mortality, or if you believe in reincarnation, the removal of memory, while keeping functions.

So you point out the influences, then hope people cut the worse strings, then help people find a pattern that works better for who they want to be. Most people when influenced only have a part of them that like that influence, most of it is actually like the soup story, where they are offered something, but lose much more. I do know there is more then one 'power' in existence, so if some 'power' makes it hard for you to be who you want based on thinking and feeling find one that educates and helps you find what you want to be, and how you want to act.

I think the Yes, not No, is really that no is authoritarian, not saying no, is explaining why someone disagrees but without telling you what you have to do, but trying to help you find what most people already think is better to do.

Or something like that.

Note I don't believe in reincarnation, since there is a contradiction, since part of who a person is, is there memories. My view on the after, is a place that matches the type of person you are, where you can learn with people like you, and help from nice things.

[KakistocracyHater]

4. you forgot one thing-a shock to the system can ennable a major pivoting

change. They used it, now the State of our nation can be used as impetous to change, but the will does not seem to be there. It was all a show, a scam.

[RandomThoughts]

5. What shock are you saying is a scam?

I think much of the system is a scam.

[KakistocracyHater]

9. I guess I wasn't clear enough about it, the scam was the "change" Obama

claimed he'd make happen, the shock is the overall state of the U.S. after 8 nightmare years.

[BzaDem]

6. The people in power now are not displaced Republicans. They were never Republicans.

And they weren't even elected by former Republicans. The Democratic primary electorate is much more liberal than the median Democratic party voter in a general election.

Furthermore, former Republicans generally do not become Democrats. They become centrist independents, a group which currently outnumbers both parties.

So your whole post is based on the flawed premise that large numbers of Republicans are becoming Democrats. But EVEN IF your flawed premise wasn't flawed, your conclusion would STILL be false, because a larger Democratic party does NOT imply a more conservative Democratic primary electorate.

Your other conclusions are also false. There is no evidence that a non-negligible portion of former Democrats are leaving the Democratic party because it isn't liberal enough (or that this negligible group is bigger now than it ever was). That is a dream some people here construct to deal with cognitive dissonance, but it has no bearing on reality.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. The issue is "tense"

The OP is mulling the future, not advocating a present action. The passage in the OP that reads ". . . when the time comes in five or twenty or fifty years" is the giveaway.

The OP is also talking about professional politicians, not man-on-the-street voters.

Nowhere does the OP assert "that large numbers of Republicans are becoming Democrats" . . . . yet. The OP speculates on the future.

The only here and now in the OP is the movement of some high level repubicans toward the Dems after getting beat by the kooks. Arlen Specter is one who went the whole way. Crist in Florida is almost there, saying he'll caucus with the Dems. Lisa Murkowski is running as an independent. Mike Castle is considering the same. THen there's Linc Chaffee who is running as an independent in Rhode Island.

So while you finding of false premise in the OP was wrong on its face, your entire refutation was based on a false understanding of the OP.

Have a swell day. :hi:




edit to change "main" to "man"

[Bluebear]

7. A reader at Americablog had this to say:

from paulinsf at Americablog: What today we call the Democratic Party is a perversion of the political party that I grew up with in the 50s, 60s and 70s. These fools think that they no longer need the support of labor unions, progressives, LGBTs and the other downtrodden.

They think that we will swallow down the bile in our throats and act against our own self interests by re-electing them time after time just because they aren't the freaking Republicans or the nutty T-Party. In my case at least, they are wrong.

Any politician who stands by and does nothing while I and others like me get fired for being gay, who stands by and does nothing while those like me get booted out of the military for being lesbian or gay, who stands by and does nothing while young LGBT people kill themselves rather than live in the hell of discrimination and hate, who stands by while I and others like me are told that we are not moral enough to get married, or to claim our loved ones on our taxes or on our social security accounts...Christ, the list goes on and on...

To those so called Democrats, I say FUCK YOU! I will NOT vote for you or anyone else in your party until you all start treating me as a living, breathing EQUAL human being. In the meantime you can take your pleas for contributions and for votes and shove them where the sun don't shine. I'm not going to vote for the Repubs, but I'm not going to vote for you either. Go get a real job, fool.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9202892&mesg_id=9202905

[BzaDem]

8. That reader isn't actually hurting the Democrats. The reader is actually hurting themself.

Why isn't the reader hurting the Democratic politicians? Because most politicians are rich and have many connections. If they lose an election, they will likely get a job being a lobbyist making multiple times what they were making before. If the reader were to tell this politician that he wanted him "hurt," the politician would probably burst out laughing.

It reminds me of people who hit their computers when they are angry with them. They are so enraged that their computer isn't working correctly that they invent a pain mechanism for computers in their mind, and then use that mechanism to hit the computer and "punish" it. Of course, the computer couldn't give two shits about whether it is getting hit. It's just a way for the computer user to resolve their own cognitive dissonance.

In truth, the reader is only hurting themself and anyone else who actually cares about LGBT causes. Not voting for a Democrat aides, abets, and enables the Republican. It's pretty simple.

[jaxx]

10. Go get a real job, fool.......I wonder who he was referring to.

It seems like the poster, paulinsf, is advocating not voting for Democrats. And this same response from another site has now been posted twice on this board.

Divisive and not very smart.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. You're wrong about the OP.

Read the OP's reply to BzaDem, above.

You're reacting to your filter of, not the words written by, the OP - the hated Clown. Next time you wish to accuse the hated Clown of some imagined transgression, accuse the hated Clown directly. You might actually get an answer.

[jaxx]

13. My reply was to another poster, not to you.

I'm reacting to nothing you had to say. Next time you wish to accuse someone of imagined transgressions, please pay attention to only those things directed to yourself. You might actually try that.

[Bluebear]

15. Well, you know me. Divisive and not very smart. Here's another link just for YOU! :)

The fierce urgency of defending Obama

Bill Maher calls it the "defending your boyfriend" mode. In essence, during the campaign Barack Obama is your boyfriend. After he's elected, he's more like someone who works for you. The former can do no wrong (mostly) and you'd better not criticize him, while the latter had better do his job or there's no point in having paid him that large advance.

Some people get stuck in boyfriend mode. Idolatry overtakes ideology, and as Peter notes, it's not like you give up your ideals when you vote for President. The President is supposed to help further your ideals, not take the place of them. So it's not disloyal to try to hold the President accountable to his promises. In fact, I'd argue that you're being disloyal to yourself, to your own principles, and to the entire reason you got into politics in the first place, when you don't.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/09/fierce-urgency-of-defending-obama.html

I'll post this twice too!

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Self-serving kick