FirstMeasure Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 AXE' date=' I've warned you before...fence sitters get splinters in their taint.[/quote']The only reason there's a fence to sit on because you built it. That middle is Ground, where you build a civilization, not a Road to get run over in or a Fence to sit on. That middle ground is America, the people that the government is for and by, live there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bol316 Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 The only reason there's a fence to sit on because you built it. That middle is Ground' date=' where you build a civilization, not a Road to get run over in or a Fence to sit on. That middle ground is America, the people that the government is for and by, live there. [/quote'] First i know many people call themselves "in the middle". But how many people can say they are truly "in the middle"? Very few I think. Most people lean one way or the other. Maybe only slightly, but there is some overall lean 98-99% of the time. Now whether or not you identify with political parties or not, well I can hear that arguement. In a seperate poll "Worst invention ever?" i said "political parties". A large part of the Founding Fathers begged legislators not to form political parties. To keep people from going "far left" and "far right", to encourage moderation and honesty, not talking points and factionalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 bol316... My problem with this is strictly semantic. But semantics are truly the basis of all law. As I said, I don't really care much who does what with whom as long as they're consenting adults, nor am I opposed to a legal status equal to that of male-female contracts. My concern is in the law, and in reading of history. Consider this, and it doesn't even get into the legal difficulties involved: If indeed we as western culture change the meaning of "marriage" to a contract of two persons of the same sex, all history would have to be rewritten - and that goes back just about as far as one may find historical documents in many languages. Was, indeed, Xantippe a male and the children raised by him and Socrates adopted? C'mon... in law we have indeed some additional case law, if not statute law, to mess with. The effect of changing too much too quickly of a word meaning so important as "marriage" is a linguistic disaster. Changing culture is not something so difficult. One advantage to the Chinese writing system is, for example, that it may be read by persons of many different language backgrounds. But "marriage" meant the same in a given character regardless of the language of the reader. What other words should we change as our culture changes? Should "republic" be changed to mean dictatorship? How about changing the meaning of "man" to include all mammals? There are some, indeed, who might wish that so too. I think changing a major word in all prior major cultures to mean something it never has meant before a horrid precedent and one that is very destructive to society at large. Again, remember my concerns are semantic rather than cultural. But when a culture lacks a common language we devolve into a Lewis Carroll sort of universe in which communications past and present mean only what we individually might wish. 'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't-- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' 'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 First i know many people call themselves "in the middle". But how many people can say they are truly "in the middle"? Very few I think. Most people lean one way or the other. Maybe only slightly' date=' but there is some overall lean 98-99% of the time. Now whether or not you identify with political parties or not, well I can hear that arguement. In a seperate poll "Worst invention ever?" i said "political parties". A large part of the Founding Fathers begged legislators not to form political parties. To keep people from going "far left" and "far right", to encourage moderation and honesty, not talking points and factionalism[/quote']That's not the point. I definitely lean left and sit to the left of center, and I've been a registered Democrat since 1990. The point is, we don't need a Percieved Fence to seperate Left from Right, we need tolerance for each others points. If there is any fencing involved, it should be to keep the extremist in Dog Pens. It's the "Your Side", "My Side" arguments that don't do any of us any good. The "Your Wrong because you're not extreme enough," arguments that are going to keep us from having the Middle Ground we need to be a country of the Left and the Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Okay.... another, and this in favor of a two-party sort of political system. Traditionally in both the UK and US, for example the two parties have generally included a wide variety of geographic areas, and through building of general coalitions, bring multiple perspectives to each party. For example, in my state Sen. Tim Johnson has been a left of center Democrat, but maintained a good deal of rural right-of-center support through such legislation as "country of origin labeling" of meats that has been sandbagged by urban interests of both parties. The ranchers tend toward support for him largely due to that particular issue. Johnson's challenge is to use his standing in his overall "party" to bring to fruition the legislation he sponsored and brought to fruition through his own party's support and that of like-minded Republicans. Politics is "the art of the possible," and building of coalitions is necessary. My argument is that coalitions (parties) with longer-term diverse geographic and cultural interests is very important to good legislation. Another example that one tends to ignore when discussing development of modern political parties in the US: Note that the two legislative houses were designed to give the smaller population states a strong degree of power for their self interest in the Senate even though they are far outnumbered in the House by larger population states. That created, in effect, the basis for a broader building of coalitions on a basis of general political philosophies as well as regionalism. As time went on, differences in perspectives brought building of different coalitions that were longer-lasting but reflected general political philosophy. I'd note that the sedition act of some two centuries ago itself was the fire that brought a welding of a more modern system of parties as we know it since forming of longer-term coalitions, whether our own or the "other," offer checks and balances that are inherent in maintaining a representative republican democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” “Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” Barry Goldwater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” “Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” Barry Goldwater Wasn't Goldwater a loser? Who was it that defeated him? I love it when the opposition uses losers to make a point. Anyway, Extremism in today's parties aren't defending anyone's Liberties, just their talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Wasn't Goldwater a loser? Who was it that defeated him? I love it when the opposition uses losers to make a point. Anyway' date=' Extremism in today's parties aren't defending anyone's Liberties, just their talking points.[/quote'] Losing an election doesn't make you a loser does it? Goldwater was beaten by LBJ...look what that got us. LBJ used one of the dirtiest campaign adds in history to help change public opinion about Goldwater. Goldwater served in the USAF and in Congress for years, he was a good man, a conservative who believed that America should mind her own business whenever possible and many other things that you would agree with. Do some research on the man before you call him a loser. The fact is, that both of the famous Goldwater quotes that I used, ring true and I can't see anyone making too much of a valid argument against either of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Losing an election doesn't make you a loser does it? Goldwater was beaten by LBJ...look what that got us. LBJ used one of the dirtiest campaign adds in history to help change public opinion about Goldwater. Goldwater served in the USAF and in Congress for years' date=' he was a good man, a conservative who believed that America should mind her own business whenever possible and many other things that you would agree with. Do some research on the man before you call him a loser. The fact is, that both of the famous Goldwater quotes that I used, ring true and I can't see anyone making too much of a valid argument against either of them.[/quote'] Both quotes are very accurate and true, but conservatives tend to use them out of context. Using his Quote, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” when discussing Political Extremism is to misuse his quote. And pointing out that he lost, much like John Kerry lost, is just to point out your lack of decent representation in conservative party today. Could you imagine what would happen if all the Democrats had to quote was Dukkakis, Deukmejian, or John Kerry? The Republicans would rightly point out that all we had on our side was losers. Losing is a very important character trait in politics, it defines your relevance. Like it or not, G.W. Bush has more relevance than Jimmy Carter. Like it or not, an LBJ quote will carry more water than a Goldwater quote. That's the nature of politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I disagree FirstMeasure. Winning doesn't mean you are right, it just means that you won. Might doesn't make right and just because the majority of the people believe something, doesn't make it right either. You said before in one of your posts that most liberals are watching Oprah or something to that effect. I agree. Many of the people that vote don't know ANYTHING about the policies or the values that the person they are voting for believes in. Somebody famous in the past once said something like, once the people find out that they can vote themselves more money, that our political system would be lost...how true this is. I am a conservative and I'm proud of it. I want freedom from the government. I want to be free to fail or succeed on my own. I believe that this is the core idea of America. If liberal ideas work, then why are so many liberal states and cities in so much trouble? Washington D.C. has been controlled by liberal policies for my entire life, their schools rank near the bottom in all measurements, in spite of the spending per student which is among the highest in the country. California has been controlled by the democrats since 1970 (before you tell me that they have had republican governors, read your state constitution and see who has the real power) and your state is $49 billion in the hole. New Orleans has been controlled by democrats for more than 100 years, look at the crime, education problems and all the other problems associated with N.O. The people in N.O. were too lazy or stupid or dependant on the government to even get out of the way of hurrican Katrina. We can look around the country and see with our own eyes the utter failure of liberal policies across the board. Another example would be to compare the "Closed Shop" states with the "Right to Work" states...the former have been losing jobs for more than 10 years, while the latter have been growing and creating jobs (the information to back this up is available from many sources including the US Gov'r labor statistics). I believe that BOTH of the Goldwater quotes that I used are true, and quite appropriate to the discussion. Got any LBJ quotes? How about any Kerry or algore quotes? I don't believe that too many LBJ quotes have stood the test of time, but here's one that, I think says it all: "I am concerned about the whole man. I am concerned about what the people, using their government as an instrument and a tool, can do toward building the whole man, which will mean a better society and a better world."Lyndon B. Johnson LBJ apparently believed that the gov't was the way to build a better person, and that the gov't was a tool we could use to make a man "whole". That's stinkin thinkin to me, I don't want or need the gov't to make me a whole man. I WANT FREEDOM. If you have the time, you should read the text of the famous 1964 speech "A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan. He gave the speech in 1964, it is still considered one of the great speeches in American history, and the message was spot on. Check it out... http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mick Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 you should read the text of the famous 1964 speech "A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan. He gave the speech in 1964 That mad me giggle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I never said Winning made them right, I said Winning made them Relevant. I can't quote John Kerry 'cause he never finished a sentence when he was in front of someone who could put him on record. I still think he wanted to lose. And while it's fine that you believe Goldwater's quotes may be appropriate to this discussion, it still reflects on the state of your Party (sorry, The Republican Party) that you must resort to quoting long lost, ineffectual yet eloquent Senator from Arizona. We get to Quote Obama, he's got lotsa cool things to say. If he doesn't deliver, he's fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Personally, I'd rather be right than relevant...but that's just me. Here's an interesting Ben Franklin quote that I think is relevant to the last election and our future... "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." It's easier to become president when the people think they'll get a check from the government you run. Unfortunately, the last election gave us the unchecked power of Pelowsi, Reed, Bawney Fwank and Henry Waxman. Say hello to Cap and Trade, a VAT, higher income taxes for everybody that pays taxes, and government run amok. Goodbye freedom, goodbye capitalism...goodbye America and good night... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 No one voted for a Check from the Government this last time. They did for G.W. Remember that rebate Check he gave out to his rich buddies after the 2000 election? Economic Recovery is what Obama Voters voted for. The chance to prosper, not a Check. It's already turning around, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 No one voted for a Check from the Government this last time. They did for G.W. Remember that rebate Check he gave out to his rich buddies after the 2000 election? Economic Recovery is what Obama Voters voted for. The chance to prosper' date=' not a Check. It's already turning around, too.[/quote'] The democratic congress gave us those rebate checks...W just signed the bill. Where is the economy turning around? Have you heard about GM and Chrysler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I never said Winning made them right' date=' I said Winning made them Relevant. [/quote']I see you touching on a continuing issue in politics. Being relevant is synonymous with being hip, cool, in style and fashionable. Since his earliest days as a community agitator and learning the tricks of the trade from Chicago insiders and criminals like Bill Ayers, Obama campaigned on speeches where what he said was compelling and touching but lacked ANYTHING specific that he could be held accountable for later. Make people feel good about you and they will vote for you. Keep it vague and nobody can ever pin you down on when you said "............" Issues voters tend to view such slick manipulations with a righteous degree of skepticism and keep their eye on the ball. The only reason I have voted so consistently Republican is that they are the ONLY party who even pretends to represent my interests, and I'll be the first to challenge them as liars when they try the same games as Democrats. I feel the same way now as I did when Carter was in office 30 years ago on; World events and the role played by the USA Military strength being beyond question or doubt Taxes (and politicians who PAY them) Borders & citizenship Personal liberty/Accountablity Integrity of ALL who hold public office - right down to the school board and the dog catcher. Respectable pay for ALL in public schools, police and fire. Handouts for able-bodied people in ANY form. Stomping out lying, deceit and corruption at all levels of government and JAILING offender. No quick fines. The dilution of our language and culture Crusaders for "tolerance" and "rights" for fringe groups who seek to destroy our society to advance their toxic agenda. I could go on, but anybody who cares can grasp the idea. Bush was far from perfect, I had my own issues with him (I voted for him 4 times) but Obama has corrected NONE of it. As far as the economy turning around - it will turn around for me when my taxes stop going up and I keep more of what I earn. Pissing away trillions of dollars with no plan or strategy (remember that from the Defeatocrats?) and no hope of getting China to carry ANY long term debt isn't exactly the best way to turn it around. Sorry FM, you're so wrong it ain't even funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Whereas it's not true that all conservatives are stupid. All stupid people are conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 ...All stupid people are conservatives. Really? http://brighthall.aol.com/2008/11/20/obama-voters-are-stupid-zogby-says/ http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2008m11d18-Stupid-Obama-voters-captured-on-video http://vodpod.com/watch/1558041-stupid-obama-voters-google-video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 It's funny how you guys, on the other side of the pond, are sooo different to us europeans. Where is the possibility of being a socialist in the little questionnaire for example? Here 'socialist' is not a cussword - unless one is a raving extreme right winger. When I travelled across your country I was sort of in the middle of the political spectre (in a european view) - people I met believed me to be a communist, hahaha... strange indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 BTW I travelled through the US in 1994 - since then I came to my senses and moved left. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 It's funny how you guys' date=' on the other side of the pond, are sooo different to us europeans. Where is the possibility of being a socialist in the little questionnaire for example? Here 'socialist' is not a cussword - unless one is a raving extreme right winger. When I travelled across your country I was sort of in the middle of the political spectre (in a european view) - people I met believed me to be a communist, hahaha... strange indeed.[/quote'] If Europeans want socialism, that's great for Europeans...America was founded on different principles. Socialism is anathema to many/most Americans who believe in personal freedom, personal responsibility, individual rights and a government that is supposed to be subservient to the people. We have over 200 years of history based on capitalism and some of us still want to continue that tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 We also have a long tradition of capitalism (and feudalism before that) - doesn't mean we can't change that into something better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 What do you propose for MY country from your Socialist perch across the pond that is "better" than capitalism? To live in your country would require a substantial "adjustment" to my freedoms, income, earning power and liberty. No thanks. (I turned down a lucrative job offer in Belgium in 1994....) Whereas it's not true that all conservatives are stupid. All stupid people are conservatives. My, how witty and thought-provoking...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 The great thing about America is the opportunity is there, whether you take advantage of it or not. If you work hard, bust your ***, and learn, you will get somewhere. I hear my fellow factory workers (at least the liberal ones) complaining about how the government is screwing them. It's all a big plot to screw the working man. Most of them went through school with just good enough grade to pass, didn't go to college, and just took the best factory job they could find. That worked back in the day, but it's all different now. You can be the bug or the windshield. If you choose the bug, remember it was your choice. Don't blame anybody but yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I look at my jobs (searched them out MYSELF) and my income over the last 30 years. No way I could have duplicated any of it in any other nation - I even briefly considered Australia until I researched it. The homes and vehicles I've owned, my hobbies, traveling, business ventures that bore handsome profit..... All without ever finishing my college degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.