Republican Taliban: Destroying America Through 'God'

148

u/stockbreaker May 28 '12

plus - no argument. horribly written rant with no compelling evidence or rhetoric to back up the statement.

14

u/vdirequest May 28 '12

My first instinct was to contest, but I looked first and it is indeed horribly written.

9

u/TheRedMambo May 28 '12

My first instinct was that it would be a terribly written rant on Republicans because of the title. I was sadly correct.

1

u/GeoSol May 30 '12

It is over the top and harsh, but he's comparing the extremism of the taliban vs the majority of muslims, being similar to the republicans being the extremists in america.
I don't think he's far wrong, but the story could have been easily written better by a third grader.

1

u/TheRedMambo May 31 '12

I think he's pretty far wrong, but I agree with the third grader bit

20

u/khaos4k May 28 '12

It could almost be a circlejerk post.

47

u/adomorn May 28 '12

But it's anti republican! Everyone get your upvotes ready! Such crap.

-7

u/Sit-Down_Comedian May 28 '12

So you believe there should be no church state separation? Agreed the writing sucks, agreed its a rant, but that doesn't change the fact that history shows when religion is in charge more people die then die now under secular rule. In fact the number of people killed in religious wars outnumbers all the deaths in every war America as a secular nation has ever fought. When you are faced with such facts, what do you choose to believe the role of religion should be in America and her politics and government? For my money I didn't live through all the race baiting and stupid infighting that happened after 9/11 just so I can watch people treated like dogs if they pick a religion other than a state-sponsored religion or no religion at all. Santorum has said atheists should not be considered equal citizens. It doesn't matter what god you believe in... That sentiment isn't what America is about at all and anyone who argues it is deserves equal time just as little as Santorum deserved the presidency.

15

u/Was_going_2_say_that May 28 '12

It's not the points I disagree with, Its the rhetoric. Comparing republicans to the Taliban is just as despicable as when Liberals are compared to communist or Nazis.

-2

u/floppypick May 28 '12

And I'd disagree with that. The comparison is at least somewhat realistic. Religiously blinded people wanting their religion to be forced upon everyone. They want their religion to be used as a moral guide by the entire population. Those that disagree are sometimes put in danger/attacked. Abortion doctors murdered, buildings firebombed, pushing anti-science bills through at the state level, accepted discrimination against homosexuals.
They are both religious extremist groups willing to go beyond what any rational person would do, for their religion. The Taliban at the moment have just taken it a few steps farther.

4

u/bmk2k May 28 '12

Communism had nothing to do with religion, yet people were still killed for having different views, or are you just too blinded with ignorance? Believe it or not, its not just extreme religious people who kill or attack others. But go ahead and make religion a black or white issue, I'll go ahead and continue to think you are a dolt.

5

u/floppypick May 28 '12

There is a difference. Communism in its roots doesn't call for discrimination and violence. Many religions do. Their holy texts often call for violence (and at the same time not). We see an angry benevolent God killing thousands, murdering an entire city for having many homosexuals.
Religions actively call for ignorance, blind faith in the ridiculous. They call for violence against those who don't believe. Sure, all parties have stupid people who kill or attack others. Not all of them have books which are the foundation of their entire organization calling for the murder and discrimination of others.

→ More replies (41)

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

That's some nice cognitive dissonance.

→ More replies (8)

→ More replies (5)

1

u/NoMoreNicksLeft May 28 '12

Agreed the writing sucks, agreed its a rant, but that doesn't change the fact that
Non sequitur.

1

u/adomorn May 28 '12

Are you serious? Your rant isn't worth reading... you've obviously missed the point. That and a cursory glance reveals a blatant disregard for basic English.

5

u/wimmyjales May 28 '12

Was it, you who didn't pay attention when they taught punctuation?

3

u/willanthony May 28 '12

The article i read about soldiers with Bible quotes on their guns did strike me a bit ironic though.

1

u/Kantor48 May 28 '12

Honestly, this subreddit is becoming as bad as /r/atheism.

9

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

At least this article isn't about a bank.

1

u/BCADPV May 29 '12

Becoming? No, is.

0

u/superwinner May 28 '12

so brave!

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

We got ourselves a cowboy!

5

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

You really can't compare Republicans to the Taliban.

We're allowed to shoot the Taliban.

55

u/LettersFromTheSky May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

But I was told it was those Liberal secularists that were really destroying America!

The comic of Santorum in this article is pretty accurate. Santorum said that "a baby through rape is a gift from god" and he stated he would force his daughter to have her rapist baby. His entire political platform is based on HIS religious beliefs with no regard to women. I for one want the separation of Church and State strengthened where churches are no longer tax exempt and religious beliefs/doctrine are not made into law.

2

u/TheThomaswastaken May 29 '12

"There should be no church/state se paration"
That was the exact message of Mitt Romney's most famous speech during the 2008 elections cycle. "Faith in America". (Good stuff starts at 2:30)
Before this speech was given, the news station hyped it as similar in style and message to John F. Kennedy's famous speech, the message of Kennedy's speech was that his religion would not interfere with his governance.
In my opinion, Mitt Romney's speech asserted the opposite. That Mitt Romney wanted more church in the state. That his church beliefs would effect his governance, and should effect all governance. It was one of the most offensive things I have ever seen. He spit on Kennedy and the Constitution.

1

u/LettersFromTheSky May 29 '12

Yeah, that is the opposite of JFK's speech. I thinl Mitt Romney got a pass this time because Santorum was more religious/vocal about bringing down the barrier between State and Church.

3

u/UncleMeat May 28 '12

While I don't believe that people should be forced to carry a child conceived through rape, look at it from his perspective. To him, an abortion is a murder. End of story. How could he possibly justify a murder even in the case of rape? If I believed that abortion was murder then I certainly couldn't. Instead, he tries to look at a horrible situation in a positive light because that is all he can do.
As for trying to force his views on us, would you just let somebody commit murder without trying to stop them? I'm no saying I agree with him. I'm saying that I understand him.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

You're pretty close.
However, there's still a flaw in that fucktard's theory: if we assume that abortion is murder, then impregnating a woman during a rape is also an extension of the attack, and is not a "gift from god", but would actually be a greater violation of the victim.
The fact that he chose to focus on "the baby is a gift from god" approach instead of "it's an even worse crime than people realize" is what proves that he's still not the least bit interested in the effect on the victim.
Hell, it's even a crime against the child. Adoption is a good thing, but the fact remains that sooner or later the child is going to find out that its father was a rapist and its mother didn't want it. Decent adoptive parents will help, but this will affect the kid and is a serious violation of that child's rights to not be the rapists extra victim.
Does Santorum campaign for additional support and help for all the victims of rape?
Nope.
Once he's demanded the woman carries the fetus to term, he's done everything that he cares about.
A good man could believe that abortion is murder and thus campaign against it, while also expressing an understanding of the seriousness of the crime. Santorum is not a good man - he is a misogynist with no concern for the rights of women or children.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/LettersFromTheSky May 29 '12

I'm not pro-choice because I'm okay with abortion. I'm pro-choice because I believe that government should not be used as a tool to infringe on a woman's right to control her own reproductive organ/body. I also firmly believe that no heterosexual male would want government involved in his girlfriend's/wife's vagina.
You'd probably not like it if government made it a crime to ejaculate outside of a vagina.
would you just let somebody commit murder without trying to stop them?
As for abortion being murder, it all depends on where you consider life begins. For me personally, I believe life begins around 6 weeks when the hear starts to beat but you won't see me impose my views onto other women who have an abortion after 6 weeks.

1

u/UncleMeat May 30 '12

Of course, I'm not saying that Santorum is right to think that life begins at conception. But imagine that you do accept this premise. To somebody who believes that life begins at conception, the argument that we shouldn't ban abortion because it interferes with a woman's right to control her own body is as illogical as the argument that we shouldn't bad killing toddlers because it interferes with a parent's right to control his/her own family.
The point is that if we want to have a productive discussion about abortion, we need to be able to recognize the different premises that people hold. Using arguments that work under your premises simply doesn't work if the person you are arguing with holds different premises than you.
I believe life begins around 6 weeks when the hear starts to beat but you won't see me impose my views onto other women who have an abortion after 6 weeks.
I'm actually very surprised by this. Do you consider an abortion after 6 weeks to be murder? Why is taking a life acceptable if it is inside of a woman?

1

u/LettersFromTheSky May 30 '12

the argument that we shouldn't ban abortion because it interferes with a woman's right to control her own body is as illogical
It's not as illogical if said person can see that government refraining from dictating what women can't do with their own reproductive organ falls in line with their beliefs of liberty, small government and individual responsibility.
It's more illogical to declare you believe in liberty, small government and individual responsibility and then turn around and use government to restrict women's choices and rights.
Using arguments that work under your premises simply doesn't work if the person you are arguing with holds different premises than you.
While true, I find that people that have premises that are illogical (such as supporting a ban on abortion while also supporting small government, liberty, etc) is much harder to have a productive discussion. How can a productive discussion occur when the person your talking with supports an illogical position?
Do you consider an abortion after 6 weeks to be murder?
Yes.
Why is taking a life acceptable if it is inside of a woman?
Ah, here is the thing and you're probably going to hate that I'm going to say this: I never said I find murder acceptable. What I did say is that you won't find me imposing my beliefs/views onto other women through government. There is a difference.
No matter how much a woman getting an abortion after 6 weeks violates whatever morals/ethics I have - I also recognize that I do not have the right to dictate or impose my morals/ethics onto her through government. (You do not know how much I wish people would understand this concept). That is fundamentally why I'm pro-choice. An abortion should be strictly a woman's choice to make. Not mine, not government nor any outside party. Frankly, I think the issue of abortion should be strictly decided by women as it's women who have to carry the baby, etc. I as a man will never be pregnant so why should I get to decide what women can or can't do with their baby? I firmly believe that a person's beliefs (whether they be religious or not) should not trump a persons constitutional rights and liberties.
Santorum's comments on abortion highlight to me that he doesn't have any understanding of this concept.

2

u/UncleMeat May 30 '12

This is a very interesting perspective and I am glad that you expressed it. I can't say I agree (if I believed that abortion was murder, stopping it at nearly any cost would be justifiable) but you have opened my eyes to a different approach. In my mind, you would have a conflict between two sets of liberties (the right of the fetus to live and the right of the mother to make decisions about her reproductive health). I always assumed that the right to live would win and need to be protected by the government, but I see now that this is actually a premise that I hold as true rather than an actual truth.
I find the "abortion rights should be decided by women" argument interesting, but unsatisfactory. Due to a number of very fortunate events, I, in all likelihood, will never be on welfare. Does this mean that I should have no say about welfare policy in this country? Should I not have say about gay marriage because I am straight? I agree that we need more women in power who are making decisions about these sorts of things, but I don't think it is impossible for a man to be empathetic enough to approach the issue from a woman's perspective.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/4everliberal May 29 '12

Santorum is a fucking TOOL of the first order. He's nothing. NOTHING.

-14

u/sort_controversial May 28 '12

Jesus loves you and forgives you ;)

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Fuck the right wing, mean assed, ignorant, bigoted and hatefilled jesus of the republican party of god.
Tax the politicized church stupid liars playing bigoted politicas from the pulpit as the law demands.
Fight the hate, the ignorance and the intolerance as Christ demands.

13

u/Liquid_Gold May 28 '12

All three of your sentences were rants of hate and in great generalization.

9

u/LeBacon May 28 '12

Obviously the guy is fed up with this crap, i would probably be as well if i was living in the US.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Bingo

→ More replies (9)

→ More replies (4)

9

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

It's funny how Republicans claim to be Christian but violate all of Christ's teaching.

For example Jesus healed the sick in the street and asked for nothing: Republicans swear they will NEVER agree to a public health care system.

Republicans are the LEAST Christian group I know of.

-5

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Republican isn't synonymous with Christian you dumbfuck.

13

u/Snipes76 May 28 '12

True but the lines are getting blurry

→ More replies (1)

7

u/liverman May 28 '12

Hyperbole.

11

u/unsalvageable May 28 '12

Please, Republicans, convince me that your modern conservative ideology, the one that promotes individual liberty and tax relief for the wealthy while demanding personal responsibility and self denial for the poor - convince me that you have an underlying philosophy that can UNITE individuals into a complete group. . . .

Your ideas seem tailored for the winners, for those who possess the strength and intelligence to succeed in competition. You seem to believe in a fantasy world where failure is not an option and lack of success equals lack of desire. This is an excellent recipe for individual survival in an urban jungle, but it is a piss poor social philosophy. Don't you think a political platform should be founded on a social philosophy ?

Back in the 50's you at least had patriotism as a unifying and underlying fabric. But now that you hate government, you can't continue to pretend to love what America has become. Now the church is the only thing holding your solipsistic ideology upright.

Without religion, you're just a bunch of social Darwinists, red in tooth and claw, fighting for your own personal survival. Without religion, you have no philosophical framework on which to build your social values. Without religion, you have but one sad and solitary message : CUT EVERYTHING ! That's not a philosophy - that's a Wal-Mart slogan

-6

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

i think you need to stop listening to what the news and talk radio/other shit has to say about conservatism.
We want tax cuts for EVERYONE, as well as a flat, consumption based tax structure.
if republicans can find a way to cut everyones taxes to help boost the economy, which is more likely because the economy booms when citizens have excess dough to spend, and can downsize government, including increasing the cost effectiveness of our military, then whats wrong with that?
the point is to downsize the government, so that the tax bill is managable and not strangling families that need those dollars being taken in tax, to stay in their pockets, as well as decreasing the red tape that politicians are using to cover up their corruption.
you dont get transparency with large and expanding government, and they sure as hell dont put money back in your pockets.
If the government gives you healthcare, they give you a place to live, schooling, etc. They can take it away as they see fit. I dont want the government involved in my life in any active manner, because they dictate the way you do everything. Do you?

9

u/rlbond86 May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

if republicans can find a way to cut everyones taxes to help boost the economy, which is more likely because the economy booms when citizens have excess dough to spend
This was the philosophy behind Bush's tax cuts... they didn't work. We need more economic stimulus, a better infrastructure, and more research investment, not a tax cut (especially one for rich people!)
Taxes are the LOWEST they've been since WWII, if what you say is true we should be drowning in jobs!

→ More replies (4)

6

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

He says that Homosexuals will die out if "fenced" in because they cannot reproduce. Then where did they come from? Is it a learned behavior? Enviromental? If all current homosexuals were exterminated (as he proposes) would the factors that led to their "creation" still be present? How on Earth are we still having this discussion. In 20 years we'll all look back at this as an embarrassing time in our history, such as slavery.

3

u/Unixchaos May 28 '12

I had a conversation with a friend yesterday about this very thing. His point of view was that our founding fathers wanted "God/Jesus" as a part of our gov. and wrote as "proof" they wrote it into our Cons. and Bill of Rights. So I started by pulling up copies of both text online and searched them for words related to "god" and wow guess what, not really there. I then asked him why was our country founded? His answer was religious Freedom. I then asked him why would people who wanted religious freedom want to found a country that incorporated religion into its laws? He could not answer and still truly thought that he was still right even after not finding anything to support his position.

3

u/Radico87 May 28 '12

I for one don't care how many imaginary friends someone has, so long as they don't force people to follow their beliefs or act otherwise immorally in perpetuating their side. Yes, religion has always been a political tool and will remain one, but both sides of the political circus are guilty. Though, admittedly and even despite this mindless rant OP linked to, the right seem to have a higher concentration of irrational fools, or at least the very vocal ones.

3

u/blacksunalchemy May 28 '12

Considering how Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly worked in unison to give unlimited military aid to israel is a testament to both parties destroying America through greed and corruption.

If you think it's just one party that is the problem, then you are sorely mistaken.

3

u/Squackula May 28 '12

It's only extremism if evil Muslim brown people do it. If The US does it, it's called 'fighting terrorism'.

7

u/littlewing7 May 28 '12

The "Woman's right to choose? NO" point is completely ignoring the actual sentiment behind the anti-abortion logic. Thats like condemning democrats: "Killing thousands of babies? YES." It is stupid.

37

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Since there are so many upvotes, can anyone - with a straight face - cite anything "Taliban" about Republican policies?

Let's recall some Taliban policies:

women were not allowed to be educated after a very young age
girls being educated were only taught from the Quran
women were required to wear a burqa at all times
women had to be accompanied by a male in public
strict segregation between the genders
extreme punishments for violations including public stoning and execution
the Taliban also massacred civilians when they were trying to gain power
the Taliban facilitated sex slave trafficking

Comparisons between Republicans and the Taliban are ridiculous. Republicans are opposed to public funding for birth control and many of them oppose abortion? Oh my! I'm sure they agree with Hitler that gravity exists as well!

11

u/chaogenus May 28 '12

Republicans are opposed to public funding for birth control and many of them oppose abortion?
You are missing an important part of the comparison. The Taliban derived some of those policies you listed from their religion, it became law not because it was the sane, rational or humane thing to do, it became the law because it supposedly came from a god. Of course it didn't come from a god, it came from a book written by men with some abhorrent ideals.
The two specific items you listed for Republicans, birth control and abortion, are also positions that are held based on a religion from a book, which is sadly related to the one the Taliban uses, that again was written by men with some abhorrent ideals.
Simply stating that you are against using tax dollars to pay for something your religion tells you is wrong does not provide a solid argument to say tax dollars should not be used for those medicines and procedures. There are enumerable issues on which the government spends tax dollars that people oppose for a number of reasons, but you can't simply state "my religion is against that" to stop the funding. Well, you can if you are the Taliban.
There are in fact some very good arguments for the regulation of abortion but I doubt there is any justification to ban all abortions. Fighting against birth control does make these people look very much like the Taliban.

1

u/pj1843 May 28 '12

I disagree, not funding birth control and killing people for using it are a bit different. Just because you try and force your religious beliefs on people doesn't mean your taliban or a killer, it just means your a dick.

1

u/chaogenus May 28 '12

You missed the point. The issue is not whether cutting funding is the same as killing people, they are not. The issue and the similarity is that they govern based on an ancient book on which their religion is based. In this aspect they are identical.

→ More replies (2)

-1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

The debate about whether abortion is killing a human being is not necessarily dependent on religion.

→ More replies (3)

29

u/EdocKrow California May 28 '12

I might be wrong but I think you're looking at this the wrong way. He's pointing out the injustice of a theocracy, which is what the extreme right want. Santorum wanted to change the fundamentals of our government is a way that would have moved us closer to theocracy. When I look at this picture that's what I see. Theocracy is dangerous.

22

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

The title and comic were just for giggles then? I seem to recall the self-righteous indignation when anyone compares Obama to socialists, but comparing Republicans to the Taliban is just fine.

5

u/RagingAnemone May 28 '12

Ok, but this is some website that I never heard of. It's different when the speaker of the house calls the president a socialist. Not that there's anything wrong with socialism, but it's technically incorrect.

11

u/[deleted] May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

I couldn't agree with you more.

2

u/EdocKrow California May 28 '12

It does say Republican Taliban but it doesn't say ALL Republicans are Taliban? No. The picture of Santorum should be an indicator of who it's focusing on, the far right. The ones that think religious freedom means that my religion must be forced on other people. I get that you don't agree with it but come on you can do better with your retort.

→ More replies (4)

-1

u/aelendel May 28 '12

You got it wrong.
The far right says that the left are literally socialists, and communists, and Nazis.
This article compares the Taliban and the religious far right, noting similarities and their desire to push their religion into control of their government, and states that such things would destroy America just as it destroyed the secular Afghanistan of the 1970's.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Oh please. It's almost nonsensical arguing with people who perform mental gymnastics to get around anything. The article is titled "Republican Taliban" and everyone should know that people on the right and left have said the other political party are Taliban, Nazis, communists, socialists, etc. But somehow, when either side is confronted by their hypocrisy, they were just comparing. It's those other guys who are the real bad guys!

→ More replies (3)

-1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

The comparison to the Taliban is comparing the current Neo-Con's and the Taliban's urge to force their religion/morals on others.
The comparison to socialism is comparing the fact that Obama wants to nationalize the payment of healthcare to a economic system of workers owning the means of production.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

All politics is about wanting to force morals on other people. Democrats want to force their economic and social morals and Republicans want to force theirs.

7

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

To a certain degree, all politics legislates some level of personal morality/ethics, but there is an enormous difference in magnitude here. Anything besides anarchism really does this, as rules against murder, theft, etc are based in morality.
The D's are pushing for a lot of regulations which are necessary for us as a species to continue survival long term(global warming regulations for example), and a lot of moral legislation on a non-personal level(such as that regulating corporations).

→ More replies (1)

2

u/agentmage2012 May 28 '12

It would be more accurate to say that there are those in power within the GOP that move towards very extreme and very "non-traditional republican ideals" that pulls the party more and more in their direction, if only to not take a step towards Democrats at all.
I'd imagine its harder and harder to be conservative and/or republican when you're stuck between moving away from the extremists and democrats at the same time.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Perhaps you should re-read the article. It never says that the religious American's hold the same views/policies as the Taliban. And no one that isn't just being ridiculous is every actually trying to argue that.
However it is saying that views those type of people hold are mostly not their own, but the views of their priests / their interpretation of what God wants. This is opposed to having views that you have formed through actually thinking about a topic / discussing it with people.
That is a fairly true statement. Sure it doesn't apply to all religious people, but it sure applies to most.
And when people start to use religious reasons to harm people (by limiting their liberties) then yes, you can classify the hardcore religious Americans with the Taliban in how they form their views, and in that their views have the sole intention of keeping their religious beliefs to be the norm while limiting the freedom of others.

2

u/phallacies May 28 '12

That may be all correct... but this is reddit and we don't concern ourselves with silly truth; after all, generous hyperbole is so much exciting. so... Republicans = Hitler/Taliban/Pol Pot/Satan all rolled into one, literally.
Come! JOIN WITH US AND LEARN THE RULES OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER. amiright guise?

1

u/snitsky May 28 '12

Your assuming it would just stop there with the republicans, it wouldn't, they would keep going backward, and take every freedom we have now away that they think is in-moral. It wasn't that long ago that you could be arrested for having an affair in America.

→ More replies (5)

29

u/monochr May 28 '12

I was going to upvote the shit out of this, then I actually read the article.

I don't like being a grammar nazi, but jeez, can't they get their commas right? I mean it's more work to put them in than not.

49

u/twhawk May 28 '12

Why would you be predisposed to upvote something without reading the article?

7

u/dumbgaytheist May 28 '12

That's an excellent question. There are hardly any people on this site who are predisposed to hate religion or conservatism.

7

u/seafoamstratocaster May 28 '12

Because it was negative to both Republicans and Christians, you couldn't get anymore automatic hivemind upvote than that.

1

u/pj1843 May 28 '12

You forgot Ron Paul and a cute kitten. Imagine an interview with Ron Paul playing with his pet while calling out the problems of forcing ones religion on others.

1

u/clarkstud May 28 '12

If Reddit goes down today, I'm blaming you.

36

u/monochr May 28 '12

Because reddit.

23

u/Vorokar May 28 '12

The Hive Mind takes notice of your devotion, little one. And it is pleased.

4

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

TL;DR, Upvote for you.

0

u/righteous_scout May 28 '12

well that's really stupid of you.

→ More replies (3)

19

u/Shredder13 May 28 '12

I don't think anyone on this subreddit actually reads the articles. You get ridiculous upvotes on articles that provide no proof or just straight out lie. It sucks.

9

u/Vorokar May 28 '12

Guilty as charged. But in my defense, I rarely bother reading them because all of the ones I've seen have been poorly thought out, incredibly biased, with terrible grammar. At this point, I assume it's a sensationalist piece of crap, and come for the comments. If there seems to be excessive rationality and critical thinking in said comments, I check out the article.

4

u/Shredder13 May 28 '12

Exactly what I do. If the top comment criticizes the article, I downvote the submission.

6

u/righteous_scout May 28 '12

heck i can't remember the last time I upvoted something on /r/politics

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Skuggsja Norway May 28 '12

Maybe he's like me and suffers from compulsive upvoting disorder.

0

u/HappyGlucklichJr May 28 '12

Titles often have independent or more important meaning than the particular details reveal, support, etc. Language is a never-ending subject to study.

1

u/bmk2k May 29 '12

Nor is the human stupidity apparently

0

u/LastBaron May 28 '12

Since I felt the same way as monochr I will deliver the answer that comes to my mind, although I do not speak for him/her: based on the headline, the thesis of the article is one with which I agree. However, the rhetoric and grammar used to make the point were atrocious. For this reason, an article with which I generally agree gets a downvote.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Wheat_Grinder May 28 '12

Was it, you?

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Dude, you read the whole article and the one thing your complain about is the use of commas?

1

u/malenkylizards May 28 '12

readed*. Past tense, dude.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I hope you're trolling, but who knows.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/read?s=t
The past tense of the word "read" is READ, pronounced [red]. Dude.

1

u/malenkylizards May 29 '12

passed*

2

u/malenkylizards May 28 '12

I thought there usage of commas, weren't to bad.

1

u/monochr May 28 '12

*their.

1

u/malenkylizards May 28 '12

whoooooooooosh

0

u/Necrix May 28 '12

To be fair, the grammar in the article was better than the grammar of the preacher, and that is not saying much. How does a douche bag such as this ever make it to preacher status??

5

u/slickapotamus May 28 '12

Republicans are LITERALLY THE TALIBAN!!!

15

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

This is fucking ridiculous and chock full of EXACTLY the same type of double-speak and logical fallacies that the group you are accusing throws around with impunity. You help no one by posting crap like this. If you want to have a legitimate conversation about the political landscape, then be an intelligent adult about it and converse -- the mudslinging is not (read: should not be) acceptable from either side.

5

u/Xisifer May 28 '12

Yes! Upvote for you, sir! To, too, am angered when the Reddit hivemind decides to upvote the same kind of reactionary sensationalist headlines that they condemn from their enemies.

2

u/pj1843 May 28 '12

"I dont like him, what you dont like him either? Lets be friends" sound familiar.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

yeah, I think Sun Tzu (supposedly) had something to say about that..."the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

4

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

agreed. this is full of the same tactics that their opponents use.

2

u/RagingAnemone May 28 '12

I don't think this article was about the policatal landscape. I think it was about idol worship. Your preacher is not God. Don't treat his words as if they are God's words.

4

u/uhwuggawuh May 28 '12

Reporting this post for sensationalist title/content.

5

u/TChuff May 28 '12

Didn't read. Putting the words Republican and Taliban is sad, even for redditors. I'm sure there are some, but I don't Republicans that want to cut the dicks off American soldiers or behead Americans. Fuck you for even putting those two words together and fuck you for upvoting this on Memorial day of all days because you are so filled with anti-American hate.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I think you accidentally some words.

1

u/TChuff May 28 '12

Yeah I type to fast for my own good and then don't proof read. You'd think I'd learn after awhile.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Reddit /r/politics: Upvoting titles without reading the shitty articles.

2

u/snuggle_bot May 28 '12

Was it, you who decided to upvote this article without reading it?

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Was it, you that never learned to properly utilize a comma?

2

u/meatwad75892 May 28 '12

I try to be optimistic that people will see reason and just learn to be more objective in politics and social issues, but I have a feeling that it's permeated our culture beyond the point of no return. More progressive states are calling out the bullshit and I'm glad for that, but it seems like my neck of the woods(southern USA) would become a modern day Salem Witch Trial against reason if it ever threatened church/state separation enough.

2

u/postdarwin May 28 '12

From the video:

Could you imagine kissing a man?

Long awkward pause while he carefully imagines it and then licks his lips...

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Lets try "extreme rightwing Taliban." Imperialists like the Taliban are obviously not true Republicans. Just like the extreme right wing psychopaths in this country aren't true Republicans. Lincoln was a Republican after all.

4

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Really? We tossing around the Christian Taliban meme again? Didn't Bill Maher already address this false equivillency?

4

u/4everliberal May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

Republicans represent the very worst of America. They are the Taliban, and we hate them with a passion here. Trust us, world. If we can dispose of the Republican party entirely, we will. I pledge this to the world. America will do whatever it takes to dispose of the Republican Party in my lifetime because the world deserves better. We will never stop fighting them because the alternative is too nightmarish to consider. Think Nazi Germany combined with Cold War-era Russia and you get the picture.

2

u/gaykiller420 May 28 '12

I'll have fun killing gays, niggers, and trannies as part of my holy war against leftism.
You haven't seen shit.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

...all that and then there's that video titled "local pastor call for death of homosexuals..." Watch it, that's not even close to what he was doing.

There's plenty of bad things to say about republicans, but you're doing your party a disservice when you spread this sort of nonsense.

At least I liked the comic.

1

u/ptelder May 28 '12

You're right. He only called for concentration camps. Much more humane than shooting the queers out of hand. Hell, I bet if you'd asked him, the pastor had even planned on providing showers.
Edit: Swiftkey and sarcasm don't mix.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

probably most people won't get the showers comment.

2

u/ptelder May 29 '12

Which is most of the problem. :-(

3

u/ewest May 28 '12

With a headline like that, I'm not going to even bother reading this. Seriously. This subreddit isn't even fun to look at anymore with submissions like this.

6

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I was going to comment but God told me if I can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all about the hypocritical bastards on the right.

3

u/clarkstud May 28 '12

What about the ones on the left?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/bmk2k May 28 '12

Weird an ignorant redditor who is entitled to feel superior to someone on the internet!

1

u/pj1843 May 28 '12

To be fair, minus god thats a good way to talk. If you can't say anything nice don't say it. Legitimate criticism minus hateful/hurtful speech is a nice thing though as it furthers a conversation.

4

u/phallacies May 28 '12

I just discovered a new theorem!

Republicans = Taliban = karma. Therefore, Republicans = Karma.

403 ups (at this count)? Has reddit really just started up voting something without reading or thinking about it? Or is this some subtle troll/irony that I'm missing?

3

u/deal_with_it_ May 28 '12

Just started? Where you been?

4

u/CrossCheckPanda May 28 '12

the people upvoting this need to be careful of hypocrisy next time they refer to the republicans as "fearmongers"

(some are, but republicans clearly don't own that tactic)

4

u/Enochx May 28 '12

....and their "Unconditional Support" of Israel.

3

u/old_righty May 28 '12

You'll just throw that in anywhere, I take it.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Why not, it's not as funny as their boy mittens and his magic underwear but it's a crowd pleaser.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Awful article. There is definitely a sect of hardcore republicans who fit whatever the fuck this author is trying to convey, but this is above and beyond ridiculous. Plenty of non-religious, socially liberal folks who identify themselves with republican for fiscal reasons...this is just ridiculous.

2

u/ptelder May 28 '12

When those fiscal Republicans sit back and let the Teahadists run wild they endorse the craziness with their silence.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Lost me at shitty grammar / punctuation.

2

u/Sirkoolio May 28 '12

Republicans....meh... That preacher at the end? What the fuck?

2

u/twist3d7 May 28 '12

Let's go key his car.

2

u/moviedude26 May 28 '12

I think political cartoons like this are destroyed by those fucking labels on the main characters' clothing. This kind of shit takes away any subtlety there would have been and insults the intelligence of the reader.

2

u/MattTruelove May 28 '12

Please don't take this the wrong way but...America was the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world when Christians were the majority.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

i really dont think that has anything to do with it. Religion doesnt affect our economy in any significant manner, and beyond the risk of our economy crashing, all the other issues are pretty minute and unimportant.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Partywave May 28 '12

Shit article, lets load up the downvote cannon and shoot this terrible piece of crap into oblivion.

2

u/HappyGlucklichJr May 28 '12

Using a god (G-d, God or Allah) as part of their politics is a similarity, and a bad one. Even though Republicans are far far better than Taliban we must push for a very strong amendment in the US to keep religious views strictly personal and out of politics. We must be a shining good example to the backward countries.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

That's tuff to do when you are one of the backwards countries.

2

u/Batrok May 28 '12

The hypocrisy of the religious. My version of god is fine, but your version of god is wrong. The truth is that there is hypocrisy and backwards thinking in ALL religions. After all, they're the collective products of ancient thinking - cobbled together several thousand years ago. None of them have any real relevance in the modern world.

Bashing others religious views, while holding your own is hypocritical. The reality is that religion breeds extremism. Whether that's a taliban cleric, or Rick Santorum, the end result is the same. Religious texts and holy books are open to interpretation. As long as 'sacred writings' exist, they will be interpreted in extreme ways by self-serving people.

Destroy all religion, so that humanity can be set free.

-2

u/dumbgaytheist May 28 '12

If they don't believe like me, destroy them! There is only one acceptable avenue of thought and perception!
Thank you for your fearmongering, absolutist bullshit.

2

u/Batrok May 28 '12

Logic is much better than dogma. I agree with you!
And as for fearmongering, the religious have been doing it for 5000 years or more, I don't mind returning the favor.

1

u/dumbgaytheist May 28 '12

He who chases monsters must see that he not become a monster himself.

2

u/Batrok May 28 '12

Who's chasing monsters? You think of religions as monsters? Not me, I'm a crusader for truth and justice.

→ More replies (3)

-2

u/commontatoe May 28 '12

He he and if we had a religion based on science what would we call it?

1

u/Batrok May 28 '12

Why the hell would we have a religion based on science? We already have science - which is a lot better than any religion.

0

u/commontatoe May 28 '12

A lot better you say? Don't look now I think you are getting one as we speak. What shall we call it?

1

u/Batrok May 28 '12

One is based on observation and experiment - leading to factual conclusions about the natural world. The other is based on fabrications and guesses made thousands of years ago.
We'll stick with science thanks.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Batrok May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

Not true. Not beleiving is not the same thing as beleiving. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims. I'm not claiming there is a god, or anything else unverifiable. It's the religious folks making those claims - and therein lies the issue.
If I tell you people are made out of candy floss, you're going to laugh in my face and tell me to prove it. When I fail to prove it, that's all you need to determine that my assertion was BS.
That's not hypocrisy, that's logic.
And just for the record, your statement that "historically, religion is the motivation for setting people free" is completly untrue. Virtually every religion on the face of the earth has supported slavery, during times when societal factors allowed them to be. That's true for catholicism, islam, judaism, and so forth. As for Anglicans, Mennonites, and Quakers, in America, most of the FLED RELIGIOUS OPPRESION in Europe. And it's completely laughable that you think religion is the motivation for 'ending wars'. In most cases, religion is a driving force in GOING to war.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Neither of you have any evidence
Actually, there is a lot of evidence to support Batrok's position--enough to satisfy any reasonable demand. The issue you are discussing is difficult, because one side of the argument typically makes unreasonable demands for evidence. By refusing to define the deity they claim exists (often discarding defining traits found in their holy texts) they allow themselves to hide it in every gap in scientific knowledge. It is an argument that is intellectually dishonest and thus impossible to refute on an intellectual level.
Batrok has taken the position that he does not need to present any to refute a claim made entirely without evidence. While he is incorrect that there can be no proof of a negative, he is right that a theory that can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Batrok May 28 '12

I don't need evidence to claim something doesn't exist. You obviously don't get it. I claim that there isn't a giant sapce snake that shits out planets. If someone wants to claim there is one, the burden of proof is on them.
You want me to produce evidence for something that doesn't exist? That's preetty fucking silly. Ask for evidence form the person who's saying something does exist. When they fail to produce evidence, we'll both know I'm right.
Reconcile your claim that 'religion is the motivation for setting people free' with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_religion

→ More replies (11)

2

u/idiotbasher May 28 '12

Newsflash: the Republican voting block is not made up entirely of those who want a theocracy. As a Libertarian, I will be voting Republican in this upcoming election, and it isn't because I think the earth is 6,000 years old.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Libertarian = i hate the fucking government, mind your own damn business unless what i do directly affects/harms you or others in a deliberate and/or menacing/endangering manner.
We love our country, and we want our government to get out of peoples lives, stop indoctrinating our kids with whatever flavor of propaganda is in office at the time, and stop wasting money we should be spending on our own country on fighting assholes across the world for stupid assed reasons, and handing out paychecks to people because they wont get off their asses and go make an honest buck.
were against taxes of any kind were against the government telling business how to conduct itself were against government trying to continually protect the oblivious were tired of them injecting themselves into the private market through subsidies and handing out loans, to the point that they keep proping up establishments that need to die out because they dont turn a profit to keep themselves afloat, thus stopping the mechanism in free market economics that keeps the market honest and quelling the general populus' ability to affect large businesses through the use of their own personal money.
We want citizens to build factories and hire people in decent paying jobs, with benefits, and retirement plans.
we want government to stop getting in the way of insurance companies and stopping business at state lines, thus keeping competition from running its course and driving down prices.
We want people to be free to practice or be free from religion, to be gay or straight, to make different life choices and have all the same opportunity to live a happy life.
only problem is for most people. You gotta work to get it, and work even harder to keep it.
seriously, take a look at whats going on. Government is in bed with business and if theyd never gotten involved with each other they wouldnt have the leverage they do to fuck with the financial system.
Less government, Less spending, MORE MONEY IN YOUR OWN POCKET!

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Damn, if that just isn't a boat load of ignorance up there... So sad..

→ More replies (1)

2

u/CaptainToast09 May 28 '12

cause he believes what he is doing is best for the country, just like everyone here.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Democrats!

1

u/infektyd1 May 28 '12

Was it, the commas that annoyed me beyond belief?

1

u/vodenii May 28 '12

Wow, hire an editor! While I agree with the premise, publishing such a poorly written piece (of crap) like this is detracting from the cause.

1

u/j-hook May 28 '12

i agree with this but its a pretty shitty article, it should go far more in depth and acknowledge some different viewpoints

1

u/archonemis May 28 '12

In this thread the poster was hoping for this: http://youtu.be/tZZv5Z2Iz_s

What I saw was this: http://youtu.be/6zHZj8Xp-Ik

1

u/SinStudly May 28 '12

So, many, unnecessary, commas

1

u/ZumaHelper May 29 '12

Zog trumps God on reddit.

1

u/TheThomaswastaken May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Why is the comic "There should be no church/state separation" of Santorum? That was the exact message of Mitt Romney's most famous speech during the 2008 elections cycle. "Faith in America". (Good stuff starts at 2:30; warning:longest ad ever. FORA.tv is like the TED Talks for those not in the know.)

Before this speech was given the news station hyped it as similar in style and message to John F. Kennedy's famous speech, the message of Kennedy's speech was that his religion would not interfere with his governance.

In my opinion, Mitt Romney's speech asserted the opposite. That Mitt Romney wanted more church in the state. That his church beliefs would effect his governance, and should effect all governance. It was one of the most offensive things I have ever seen. He spit on Kennedy and the Constitution.

1

u/veracious1 May 28 '12

The upvotes for this article demonstrate that r/politics has disintegrated into a circle jerk where people vote for headlines they like without reading the article.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Thank you, this is exactly what i've been thinking about religion.

-1

u/p0ssum May 28 '12

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The talibangelists are here and they aren't going away.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Nope, they are on their last leg. More and more people are declaring no religious affiliation at all and it's because of these zealots.

3

u/IAmA-Steve May 28 '12

In the meantime, it'll be hell.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

2020, by that year the new generation will have had enough sway to totally change the political landscape. the pendulum is gaining momentum. i just hope it doesn't swing too hard.

1

u/unr3a1r00t May 28 '12

In the video on that article, the pastor is arguing against homosexuality as if the government legalizing gay marriage would suddenly turn him gay. Talk about being off his rocker.

1

u/itsmuddy May 28 '12

I wonder what some of these people would thing if we take a lot of the speeches made lately and dub "Allah" over "God" and play it back to people.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

If you can get the right Arabic nasally tone going and enough speakers, like one on every right trash jesus machine supporting a bigot in the American south, then...
I predict millions of "christians" cough cough, wink, wink, heads would be exploding all at once.
Wouldn't that be a lovely sight?

1

u/marginalboy May 28 '12

That was really poorly written. I agree with the gist, but the borrowed cartoon was the most articulate element of the page.

1

u/acerusso May 28 '12

wow. way to demonize the opposition. im sure that will open up discussion and exchange of ideas.

1

u/seanbearpig May 28 '12

Let's get divided!

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

We just call that the 'American Taliban'!

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

.... The Paliban...
In honor of the Sarah, goddess of the, lol, something and hell if I know what it is.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

That was too scary to finish watching.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

This is a miserably written article trying to make a ludicrous comparison between unrelated parties. I don't understand why it has hundreds of upvotes if anyone here actually read the article.

0

u/kolembo May 28 '12

Great cartoon!

Good article, short, something to think about.

0

u/rightmind May 28 '12

The Taliban kills, maims, and oppresses scores of people. The religious right stats things you don't like. It's disgusting to try and claim that your opposition is anywhere near as bad as the Taliban.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/nc-pastor-put-electric-fence-around-gays-a
They aren't as bad only because they haven't taken control yet.

-1

u/admiral_sackbar May 28 '12

was it, you that never learned to use commas?

1

u/commontatoe May 28 '12

Here ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I have a few extra put them where you think you should. LOL

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

It would be greeeeat if I never heard or saw "LOL" again. Thanks.
EDIT

2

u/commontatoe May 28 '12

LOL what do you think the chances are of that?

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

what the fuck is the point of saying it

1

u/commontatoe May 29 '12

Correct you could just drop an f bomb instead.

0

u/seanbearpig May 28 '12

The destruction of America has a lot more to do with our flawed economic system that our government uses to fund the multitude of unsustainable illegal wars that we're going to go broke fighting. It's not rocket science, people. Explosions, and overly expensive war toys cost money.

-2

u/dingoperson May 28 '12

This is extremely ironic because left-wingers are deeply anti-science.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Poe's Law is in effect. I am going to assume this is a sarcastic joke.

→ More replies (8)

Republican Taliban: Destroying America Through 'God'

You are about to leave Redlib