Everyone makes mistakes by dreamtrove

My apologies, Citizen already said it much better:

Quote:
You worship a false Bush

BTW, The Right Stuff is on crack, and therefore unsalvageable. Send him to rehab.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:08 AM

JOSSISAGOD

You must have read my last post in the RWED. You've been thinking A LOT about BOTH Political parties and their problems.

JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:09 AM

HKCAVALIER

Hey Dream,

Who's defending Slick Willy Clinton here? I really haven't seen any of that. What I have seen is pseudo-cons accusing anyone who critizes Bush of being a Clinton-lover. Typical pseudo-con misdirection and debate framing. No one that I've seen is saying that Clinton wasn't into it up to his eyeballs. At least, not that I've seen. Can you point me toward any exemplary thread or Clinton toadie poster?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:19 AM

MISBEHAVEN

Just something to think about the next time you go to vote.

In the last Presidential election, the Presidential candidates for both the Green party and the Libertarian party were arrested, in Cleveland, Ohio, while trying to enter the Presidential debate hall. The debates were paid for by tax payer dollars, and they were held in a public forum. But these two men, leaders of parties that collectively represent millions of Americans, were arrested and released after the debates ended. Their message was never heard. Who was responsible? I think both parties are culpable, becuase it is not in the interest of either party to have a third, fourth, etc.. And both the Green party and the Libertarian party, if allowed to participate, could turn the tide of an election and gain in popularity as well. So next time you go to vote, and you hear Republicans or Democrats tell you that you are throwing away your vote if you vote for a third party, think about how you are truly squandering your vote when you vote for either one of the corrupt, entrenched parties whose only priority is to retain power.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT, just as much as we need to get off the Dem v GOP train, we've got to get off the "liberal" v "conservative" train. I don't consider myself a liberal. I didn't vote for Clinton mainly because of NAFTA. I didn't vote for Bush for the same reason. So instead of slinging assumptions around in all directions (I know, you want to wake up the conservatives so you can "beat" the "liberals") let's just talk about issues without partisan baggae.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:29 AM

MSG

a politicians only job is to gather money and support sufficient to allow himself to be re-elected... so when you think about it, we have the best congress and president that money can buy:) and we always will until we go to a system where all political contributions go into a main fund and every politician gets the same allotment of money, air time, etc. Then we will have a more equal footing and a chance at getting people who are running for office not for the gain and benefits, but for the chance to make a difference..but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong:)

I choose to rise instead of fall- U2

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:41 AM

MISBEHAVEN

I agree with you. I've always advocated public financing of campaigns, and the removal of lobbyists. However, there's a problem with implementing that idea, because the only people with the power to enact the legislation needed to make the change are those that benefit from the system remaining as it is. It would take a number of politicians with integrity and the best interest of our country to draw up and pass such legislation, and I don't think they exist in either party anymore.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:02 AM

HK,

Maybe no one, yet. But I wanted to be balanced, and also, Clinton and the dems aren't really being attacked at the moment because of their absence of power, but a lot of these arguments remind me a lot of the 90s/clinton arguments in the reverse. People on the right said a lot of stuff about shady dem deals and got a lot of Clinton's the best president ever you sore losers, which is not to say anyone here specifically did that, but that it's not a one sided thing, it's not that auraptor and all are more blindly partisan, they're just the ones supporting the dickhead in the oval office. But when the dickhead changes, so will the players, on this level. In the power circles, most of those players remain the same.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:07 AM

WHIMSICALNBRAINPAN

While I understand your point and argee with some of it I must make a point of my own.
Liberal does not equal wacko, it equals someone who believes in the protection of civil liberties, reform, and progress.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:36 AM

Misbehaven,

Too true. If you want to know exactly how the shut out works, Mr. Nader has endless rants on the subject.

Signym,

I just don't know that we can, or even that we should. I think that there are conservatives and liberals, and they are people who value different things.

Typically, liberalism is about universal equality, social change, and in particular, social change towards universal equality.

Conservatism in its classic form is about a way of life, preservation, and in particular, preservation of a way of life.

The two groups, which I agree don't include everyone, need to be able to join forces to defeat this thing which has sprung up, which I like to call "evil."

Afterwords, they will hammer out differences, but hopefully they will do so by reaching some compromise rather than by one beating the other. But in order to do that, they need to individually let go of the fear that if they stop fighting each other that the other side will 'win,' whatever that means, and so they end up support their side, left or right, and its leader, in spite of how evil her or she may be.

[rant]
John Kerry, for example, is another example, just to show it's a cross spectrum problem. A lot of people rallied behind Kerry, even to the point of sites like 'nader don't run' - now there's a democratic one - because they were afraid of Bush, but they didn't stop to seriously think about Kerry. (Oh he's all we got?) Here's a man who refused to say he wouldn't have a draft, wanted to expand the Iraq war, not scale it back, and when asked what Bush did wrong he said he "Backed off from Basra and Fallujah." The problem with such a campaign is that he ended winning one platform point: the genocidal destruction of fallujah.
[/rant]

The problem is, lately, all of our candidates are like this. People will still be liberals and conservatives, many of them, sure, some more moderate than others, and some right in the middle.

Which I don't mean personally to anyone, by any means, but as a society, we have to be able to see all of this, and settle it, and if we can't be civil about it and see it for what it is, what hope is there for the more mindless hoards who only take network TV news' word for everything?

My greatest fear at the moment is that Hillary, with the full backing of the shadow operators of the Bush govt, will sweep the dem '08 candidacy, and then win the '08 general election in a three way split, and she will get to start with more or less a clean slate, and the same people, cheney, kristol, cambone, etc. will be making the decisions, and the new admin. will be completely unaccountable to what essentially the same people have done in the previous administrations. I'm not saying the McCain/Condi govt. is going to be any better (will it? I'm not sure) but that once the total lack of a revolution is over, people will subside into complacency again.

In an ideal world, Clinton's own people should have impeached him right after waco, Bush's own people should have impeached him right after the patriot act, or the attack on afgh.

We just need a better class of leader, and we need to demand that of ourselves. It's okay if some of us believe different stuff, value different things, but we have to learn to live with that reality, and to do that, we have to overcome our fear of losing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:40 AM

Yeah, what can I say. Really pissed at Clinton, and if you look at the way he has propped up some of this adminstration's policies, he is obviously complicit to some degree in some of the major ills of our society.

The democrats floated a moderate with Clinton. It's a big party and they wanted to court the middle. Not every democrat is truely a liberal, and if the liberal block of ideas are getting nowhere, it isn't because of those ideas, it's because those ideas are not getting the play by the democratic party. We aren't sitting idly by though, and supporting any democrat just because of the D in front of his name. That should be obvious after the lieberman primary. We're tired of the 'do nothing' approach that many of our reps have adopted, so we've made a change.

If you'll notice, most right wing attacks don't go like this - "Clinton wasn't any good either you liberal bastard. He deregulated the media and he signed NAFTA, and he's a warmonger!"

If they said that, we could hug and move onto a different discussion, because I think we could agree on those terms.

Instead its crap about the economic slump being clinton's fault, and about 9/11 being a failing of his administration, and don't forget Whitewater.

I'm all for attacking clinton, but lets do it for the right reasons.

The point is liberals are not, inspite of effort after effort to portray them as such, as bad as conservatives. We are not loyalists.

Our ideals are pretty transparent - We believe in the Constitution, and we believe in the Bill of Rights. We believe in social justice not because we're commies, but because we truely believe in the merits of a meritocracy. We want to save capitalism by perpetuating a playing field for competition to be allowed to thrive.

We believe that the lives of people are all worth something. We believe in walking softly but carrying a big stick - we believe in diplomacy, and we believe global warming is happening. We (mostly anyway) believe in the value of science. We believe the child is worth more than the fetus(though we do not take abortion lightly), and that those who still have a living brain should be tended to over those who are kept animated inspite of being dead.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:43 AM

MSG

There's a snag in your pooled campaign fund. Who controls it? Nietzsche would have said whoever has something to gain by controlling it, ultimately will seize contol of it. Given that, the fund becomes a real nightmare. If Bush/Clintons control the fund, then Hillary, Jeb, Chelsea, Jenna, get the fund, and and independents who those people like, the libertarians who get funds will be ones who are really plants for Bush.Clinton.com

We need a completely free and open system, If tons of cash gives you a huge advanage in one area, make a rule which rebalances it. Actually, at the moment, cash is not the main unbalancer, it's the media. The media, like the debate commission, is controlled by people who are democrats and republicans. And they're on a particular side of that. The media hated not only Ralph Nader but Howard Dean, AL Sharpton, etc., didn't even acknologe the existance of Michael Peroutka or John Buchanan, never liked Newt, was terrible to Lott. There are a whole bunch on both sides the media has chosen not to support, and so their power shrinks. But it loved Clinton, and it loves Bush. If it didn't, neither one of these neanderthals would have ever placed in their own primaries. We need a press that shows all sides, not just "both sides."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:53 AM

Better get my $0.02 in before this discussion turns nasty (kudos to all participants thus far for keeping things nice and civil).

I've been ruminating for a good while now on how oppressive (yes, that's right) the two-party system is. Our ideologies seem to come in bundles these days. If I'm from party "A" I must have certain positions on issues 1, 2, and 3. If I'm from party "B" I must hold the exact opposite position from party "A" on those same issues. Heaven help us if we dissent from the party line. You can't be a good [fill-in-the-blank] if you don't swallow the entire party agenda whole. The party moves in lock-step and brooks no independent thinking. Forgive me if that's a mite cynical--but look at what happened to Joe Lieberman. Regardless of your position on the war, his example is particularly instructive.

I'm sorry, but isn't real life more complicated than that? I may be an odd bird, but damn--I want to decide for myself what my positions will be, not toe some party line. The rabid defenders and the rabid accusers wind up looking just the same--like unthinking drones. Bush's policies may be asinine (and I'm not here to argue either way) but it can't be the case that he's pure evil through and through. By the same token, Clinton may not have been a perfect angel, but he wasn't the anti-Christ either. We need to take a more balanced, holistic approach to issues, rather than simply this binary view.

I think it's the binary view that bothers me the most. There's just hardly any thing that's a true "either-or" proposition; yet that's how things are so often portrayed by the party hardliners. Hence, Bush must be pure evil, can-do-nothing-right, and anything that even looks right is either a lie, or propaganda, or spun. On the other hand Bush is pure light, has the Midas touch, and anything that even looks wrong must be either a left-wing plot, a lie, or spin by the liberal media. This can't be right. Is not the world much more complicated than this? Does Bush put his pants on evilly? I mean, come on. On the other hand, he can't be perfect, can he? I'm pretty sure that there's none of us perfect (except maybe this one guy from Nazareth).

We've got to get beyond party-dictated positions and think critically. We will almost certainly still disagree--but on principle, not on political grounds. And I'd much rather disagree with someone on principled grounds than on political grounds. Because at least then I can still respect the person. I find it very difficult to respect someone who merely recites those positions (and all those positions) that their party tells them to.

In the final analysis, I'm afraid that I just don't see much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. To be fair, one of them seems to reflect my positions better than the other, but not by much, and certainly not in sum. But ultimately, the major issues that divide the two parties are mere window dressing as compared to the total machinery of government. When it comes right down to it, politicians from both parties want the same thing: to get re-elected. They may crawl into bed with different folks to get that done, but regardless of the buyer, the net effect of selling your soul is the same. And we wind up with an oligarchy, ruled by those with the funds to purchase their place in the halls of power.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Whimsicalnbrainpan:
Liberal does not equal wacko, it equals someone who believes in the protection of civil liberties, reform, and progress.

Can you believe in protecting civil liberties, et al, and not be a liberal? Can a "conservative" believe in the same?

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:55 AM

MSG

AS for who controls it...I figured it'd be like the budget. Except that it's set up with unbreakable ( which can be done) trust law saying that each candidate on each level gets a certain equal amount to do with as they please once they have a set number of signatures ( verified by deed poll) indicating public interest in their campaign...it'd be administered in the same way as funding for any other permanent function...

Hey I actually like McCain. Fairly serious straight shooter. I'm comfortable with his general set of choices and all, but I don't pick any one party. I'd rather wait til each candidate has his/her say and then decide based on which aspects of their platform I like...
problem is voters like all of us who actually think through choices and deliberately and carefully based on our beliefs vote are few and far between.

I choose to rise instead of fall- U2

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:57 AM

MSG

Causal I'm right with you....sadly Machiavelli had it right. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's all about being in power, not about anything else. Ok that's a depressing thought,maybe someone nice will come along and by some miracle the voters will see it and vote him/her in.

I choose to rise instead of fall- U2

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:00 AM

Look at what happened to Lieberman?

lieberman was an example of the status quo, of the lock-step element of the party that facilitated this white house in its war bid and its illegal activity of spying on the American People.

I'm all for finding a better system, but I'm less distressed by the 2 party system than I used to be. It's broken, but parties can shift from the inside. The people do have some control over who gets to run against the other guy. Grass roots efforts are effecting this. Lamont by the way, was a grass roots effort. Liebermen was the entrenched politician who was getting big corporate money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Look at what happened to Lieberman?

lieberman was an example of the status quo, of the lock-step element of the party that facilitated this white house in its war bid and its illegal activity of spying on the American People.

And here comes the nasty!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:03 AM

Causal,

I know a conservative can believe in protecting civil liberties, but its become a major disconnect of the republican party since Bush has been in office. I don't think you can care about them deeply, and vote for this President, unless you are unaware of this Administration's efforts to take a flame thrower to the Bill of Rights.

Edit:

Really, that was nasty? Because I started it with a question? Oh, or because it has a partisan element? Lieberman was a dem though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
lieberman was an example of the status quo, of the lock-step element of the party that facilitated this white house in its war bid and its illegal activity of spying on the American People. [ emphasis added ]

OK, maybe not nasty per se, but definitely inflammatory (at the very, very least, it could be read that way).

Quote:
Causal,

I know a conservative can believe in protecting civil liberties, but its become a major disconnect of the republican party since Bush has been in office. I don't think you can care about them deeply, and vote for this President, unless you are unaware of this Administration's efforts to take a flame thrower to the Bill of Rights.

This is the kind of rhetoric that I'm talking about, at any rate. "This Administration's efforts to take a flame thrower to the Bill of Rights"--I agree that Bush and Co. are playing fast and loose with civil liberties. But I don't agree that they are actually wanting to take them all away (were that the case, he'd never have allowed the Assault Weapons ban to sunset). To suggest that they want to chuck them all seems a bit reactionary. I think they're comfortable violating certain civil rights because they feel justified doing so--and I oppose that. But to say that they want to (cue Imperial March) destroy all civil liberties takes the conversation to a more dogmatic, less rational place.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:24 AM

Now, just to point out before I continue, I took your suggestion that Lieberman was ousted because he didn't toe the party line as inflamatory rhetoric.

It's all a matter of interpretation I guess. Remember though, when I respond to your last post that we are now engaging in a somewhat partisan arguement, so don't dump all the blame on me here for the turn in this discussion.

The Bush administration's goal is to keep the republicans in power, while propping up the interests of the companies that put him in office. The goal is not expressly to destroy the Bill of Rights - the bill of rights is merely a major inconvenience that gets in the way of its goals. I see no reason why the administration wouldn't let the assault weapons ban lapse - that's business as usual, and has no effect on this government's power grab, while it does benefit his lobbyists.
...............................

And what can I say about Bush? I don't like him. I've seen very little of him that I can't complain about. I don't think its fair to say that because we don't point out the good things...that everything we say about him is negative, somehow we are being blindly partisan. You have to at least accept the chance that he has done nothing that we think is good.

The best I can give you was when he was on O'reilly and he told O'reilly that immigrants were people, and that he didn't agree with a gay marriage ban - a couple of WTF moments for me, but sitting next to O'reilly, Bush actually looked human. The only other thing I can give him is that he wasn't for the crazy House bill against immigrants. That's not much, but I do give credit where it is due.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:29 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
We all did it. We all voted for the bad guys at one time or another, just about every American here, and probably some of the feriners. We voted for stooges also, Dole, Perot, Kerry?

Everyone makes mistakes. I think it's time we let go, get over it, move on with our lives. Take an outside political perspective.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for any of 'em...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:32 AM

WHIMSICALNBRAINPAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Whimsicalnbrainpan:
Liberal does not equal wacko, it equals someone who believes in the protection of civil liberties, reform, and progress.

Quote:

Can you believe in protecting civil liberties, et al, and not be a liberal? Can a "conservative" believe in the same?

Absolutelly! But I do not feel that Bush has protected our civil liberties, only weakened them. I feel the same way about our supreme court. I wanted to scream when they ruled that it was legal to sieze private property in order to build strip malls.

I know a lot of what he has done he says has done "for the good and saftey of our country". But I have to go with Ben Franklin on this one:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve niether liberty nor saftey"

I did not mean to imply that non-liberals don't care about civil liberties in my response to your post. I was just giving you a paraphrased definition of the word liberal.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

Now, just to point out before I continue, I took your suggestion that Lieberman was ousted because he didn't toe the party line as inflamatory rhetoric.

It's all a matter of interpretation I guess. Remember though, when I respond to your last post that we are now engaging in a somewhat partisan arguement, so don't dump all the blame on me here for the turn in this discussion.

My apologies for not communicating adequately. I didn't mean to start a partisan debate (nor even participate in one). I am no fan of the current administration, and find many of its actions baffling. My point with the Lieberman thing was that, as I perceive it, Lieberman was ousted (so to speak) for support Bush's war effort--for not being a good Democrat, in other words. I guess it's true that as with anything, there's more than one interpretation of events.

Quote:
The Bush administration's goal is to keep the republicans in power, while propping up the interests of the companies that put him in office.

I agree with you completely here, with only one addendum. It isn't just one party or other that wants to keep itself in power--it's politicians that want to do so.

Quote:
I don't think its fair to say that because we don't point out the good things...that everything we say about him is negative, somehow we are being blindly partisan. You have to at least accept the chance that he has done nothing that we think is good.

Right you are. That may be the case. Allow me to say that I do not believe that the lack of compliments is blindly partisan. It isn't. What is blindly partisan is the attitude of some around these boards (though thankfully not anyone in this discussion) that Bush is pure, unmitigated evil. Absurd. Not defending Bush, mind you. Just defending the notion that the world must be more complicated than the binary conception that party loyalists on BOTH sides would have it be.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:36 AM

Righteus9, That rhetoric is absurd. News flash...B and Co. will be out of office shortly. What they take from us, they ultimately take from themselves. Why would they want to "bend" a couple of our rights you ask? Because they believe they are protecting you. Or are you a kook that thinks Bush will steal our liberties out from under our noses, and declare himself "Ruler of this land"? Give it a fuc*king rest. I hope you are a resident of the great state of Connecticut. Lamont got plenty of corporate dollars...Who cares anyway! To hell with both of those girly libs. And Lieberman will keep his seat as an Ind. anyway. Stop being so fu*king Righteous. Try a little wrongeous now and then. Or a little shutalingeous

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Righteus9, That rhetoric is absurd. News flash...B and Co. will be out of office shortly. What they take from us, they ultimately take from themselves. Why would they want to "bend" a couple of our rights you ask? Because they believe they are protecting you. Or are you a kook that thinks Bush will steal our liberties out from under our noses, and declare himself "Ruler of this land"? Give it a fuc*king rest. I hope you are a resident of the great state of Connecticut. Lamont got plenty of corporate dollars...Who cares anyway! To hell with both of those girly libs. And Lieberman will keep his seat as an Ind. anyway. Stop being so fu*king Righteous. Try a little wrongeous now and then. Or a little shutalingeous

And that's my cue to exit. Ta to everyone for a pleasant (albeit brief) discussion. R9, good talking with you. Whims, ditto. Citizen, nice to see you made it in (and with a great opening line at that).

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:43 AM

Quote:
Liberal does not equal wacko, it equals someone who believes in the protection of civil liberties, reform, and progress.

here we go again.

Okay, do we need to go back to republicanish and democratish?

Let us all agree on terms that we can use in this forum for various common points of view so we don't have this particular argument again.

here are my proposals

leftist: belief in a social safety net, universal equality, govt run services.

rightist: belief in free market capitalism, preservation of a way of life, limited govt.

libertarian: belief in strong civil liberties, unlimitled individual rights, non-interference.

authoritarian: belief in a strong central govt., security over personal freedom, top-down social structure.

All of these work for everyone?

that said, reform and progress are very vague notions. I think that I feel we are now forced to drop conservative and liberal to avoid etymological discussions. Too many people's idea of not only liberal, but conservative, is too much at odds with other peoples, not just mine.

I think the above, people can define themselves and left-libertarian or right-libertarian, or whatever. I think also people should accept that if they support domestic wire-tapping either under FISA or under Bush Rules, that they are not libertarian, by definition, but should temper their self image or alter their position. Something like "Somewhat libertarian-right" or "Limited libertarian-left" are more on target.

Also Libertarian does not require that you support a psychos right to murder, it means you support a group of nuts in waco's right to be nuts., or a bunch of commies in san francisco's right to be commies. All as long as it doesn't effect someone else's right. Hope this works for everyone.

I'm just pre-empting the obvious argument that no one is libertarian unless they support a methhead's right to hack people up with a chainsaw.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:48 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Liberal does not equal wacko, it equals someone who believes in the protection of civil liberties, reform, and progress.

Can you believe in protecting civil liberties, et al, and not be a liberal? Can a "conservative" believe in the same?

Casual, sure. the definition of liberal is a personal one, apparantly, and I'm *not* getting into this argument again. The above is libertarian, though vague-ish.

no offense to WhimsicalBrainpan

everyone thinks their side has a monopoly on good ideas, and doesn't want to accept its own failings, its what makes us partisan.

I'm fairly conservative, and I agree in all of those above 'liberal' things. But the real rub is when we get to defining what those things mean, we might run into some snags. What's progress? for example. What's reform? To me, privatization of publicly held industry such as public schools or railroads, would be 'reform' and possibly 'progress'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:52 AM

While I agree with most of the level-headed posts here, joining forces is never a simple thing.
Look how hard it was for the Avengers and the Justice League.

But we do need to drop the cliches and tired rants to get to a point of agreement.

2 centablos Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:57 AM

Well, if you can hang with it, so can I!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
But we do need to drop the cliches and tired rants to get to a point of agreement.

That seems to be the tricky part, eh? As DT said, it seems to be a matter of defintions, to a certain extent. What is "progress"? What are "civil liberties"? Ultimately, we're arguing over the same things that humans have been arguing over for millenia: ideas.

I just wish we could all frankly acknowledge that nobody has a "monopoly on ideas". That would go a long way.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:58 AM

MSG,

my man nietzsche tells me we don't get to decide who controls it, the forces we set up provoke an evolutionary response, so if there's an advantage to controlling it, then those who benefit will control it.

It's basically the same idea as the debate commission, which when first thought up, no one dreamed it would because corrupted because it was inconceivable that democrats and republicans would ever cooperate with each other, but after perot, they united against a common enemy: everyone else.

R9

I don't buy lamont as outsider, but i was real glad to see joe tank. As a right-libertarian, joe was my political opposite, big spending govt., authoritarian.

Citizen,

did you vote for Blair? I don't think the LibDems are neocon clones.

Kaneman

reality check, rights infringements don't affect bush and co. They are going for perament power. consider this a right hook if you will, but on an objective left-right scale, i think bush is too left. But overall, bush is too authoritarian and not enough libertarian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:59 AM

Hehe,

very cute Kaneman.

Even though I'm sure you're being hyperbolic about what I said, I'll clarify again.

I didn't say this administration was looking to hold onto power for itself. I said it was looking to hold onto power for republicans, but more specifically, I mean neocons.

Thanks though for being so direct about why you think they would 'bend' some of our civil rights. I find that reasoning unacceptable. I hate having to dredge up the quotes from our founding fathers that everybody should know by now. It's starting to feel trite. But either you really aren't acquainted with them, and as an American you should be, or you don't care, and as an American you should.

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

Benjamin Franklin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:00 PM

Okay, splinter thread is now called definitions. I think we may be getting somewhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:02 PM

I confess that many times I argue the 'word' thing ad-nauseum. We all want to get to the same general place, it's the details we get snagged on, and the level of trust we have for our leaders, I think...
We need to see where we want to be as a nation, and work on how to get there- not descend into "Superman could do it better than Iron-man, you idiot!"

Stuck on one analogy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:21 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

did you vote for Blair? I don't think the LibDems are neocon clones.

Actually I haven't voted in a General election, I wasn't eligble for anything but a postal vote until recently, I got the forms, but at the end of the day you couldn't pay me to vote Tory, though they've changed somewhat recently they're all about protecting the upper class at the expense of everyone else.

Labour, well New Labour Old Tory, not much difference as far as I can see.

Lib Dems, Haven't a F

king clue. Theres a smattering of others, for instance (and disturbingly) the BNP (British ~~Nazi~~ National Party) but the LibDems ain't got much of a chance and anyone else even less so.

Last local election I voted Green and LibDems, next General Election I have really no idea who to vote for.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
We need to see where we want to be as a nation, and work on how to get there- not descend into "Superman could do it better than Iron-man, you idiot!"

This is exactly what I've been trying to say...who knew that what I needed was a comic book analogy??

The thing is, though, both sides see themselves as Superman, and the other side as Luthor. I just wish we could give up the whole sides thing. Useless.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Righteus9, That rhetoric is absurd. News flash...B and Co. will be out of office shortly. What they take from us, they ultimately take from themselves. Why would they want to "bend" a couple of our rights you ask? Because they believe they are protecting you. Or are you a kook that thinks Bush will steal our liberties out from under our noses, and declare himself "Ruler of this land"? Give it a fuc*king rest. I hope you are a resident of the great state of Connecticut. Lamont got plenty of corporate dollars...Who cares anyway! To hell with both of those girly libs. And Lieberman will keep his seat as an Ind. anyway. Stop being so fu*king Righteous. Try a little wrongeous now and then. Or a little shutalingeous

And that's my cue to exit. Ta to everyone for a pleasant (albeit brief) discussion. R9, good talking with you. Whims, ditto. Citizen, nice to see you made it in (and with a great opening line at that).

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

God what a wuss. Why so touchy? Wasn't even posting to you. And whats with the "ta" shit? Where are you going? To get your nails done! Try carebears.com...sissy boy! I hear it's a little less confrontational. Shit whats with some of the posters around here always worrying what someone posts to another? I call an ass an ass if you don't like it fu*k you. And whats with the magical plank wishing? Ta, magical, fairies, speckled wands, frilly rose colored slippers, and satin sheets...I'm starting to worry about you casual.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:45 PM

ANTIMASON

this all sounds fine and dandy, but let me pose a hypothetical question to you all:

if 9/11 was PROVEN to be orchestrated, atleast in part, by elements within the American establishment, how would that affect your "agree to disagree" view on our our government and its 2 party system?

as for myself, i would question everything that this "establishment" tells me, especially when its unproven, and is being justified for a never ending war

for example, is it at all possible that a shadow party exists, funded by the central Banks, corporations and the military industrial complex, with a specific goal?

considering everything that has happened since 9/11; the patriot act, homeland security, Iraq war, oil prices, the NAFTA superhighway, real ID act... is it possible that we actually had the motive to execute 9/11?

i think we need to prove conclusively that 9/11 happened like they said it did; or this war on terror is a complete fraud, and a front for something more SINISTER

i think maybe thats something some of you should consider; that there is a conspiracy of evil taking place in the world, just as the Bible says, and it is being pushed by the rich, the rulers and governments.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
God what a wuss. Why so touchy? Wasn't even posting to you. And whats with the "ta" shit? Where are you going? To get your nails done! Try carebears.com...sissy boy! I hear it's a little less confrontational. Shit whats with some of the posters around here always worrying what someone posts to another? I call an ass an ass if you don't like it fu*k you. And whats with the magical plank wishing? Ta, magical, fairies, speckled wands, frilly rose colored slippers, and satin sheets...I'm starting to worry about you casual.

And this troll wonders why I don't want to hang around with him? I wonder if he's one of ShadowFly/River6213's many personalities.

Kane, you don't seem to realize the point here--and that's OK (though I do wish that you'd tried a little harder). The whole point of this thing was that your brand of political harangue is unhelpful to truly understanding what needs to be done to move the country forward. Pardon the hell out of me if I was just a teeny bit irritated when you joined in with just that sort of rant. But you know what? Thanks for the insults. Those were real helpful.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
God what a wuss. Why so touchy? Wasn't even posting to you. And whats with the "ta" shit? Where are you going? To get your nails done! Try carebears.com...sissy boy! I hear it's a little less confrontational. Shit whats with some of the posters around here always worrying what someone posts to another? I call an ass an ass if you don't like it fu*k you. And whats with the magical plank wishing? Ta, magical, fairies, speckled wands, frilly rose colored slippers, and satin sheets...I'm starting to worry about you casual.

And this troll wonders why I don't want to hang around with him? I wonder if he's one of ShadowFly/River6213's many personalities.

Kane, you don't seem to realize the point here--and that's OK (though I do wish that you'd tried a little harder). The whole point of this thing was that your brand of political harangue is unhelpful to truly understanding what needs to be done to move the country forward. Pardon the hell out of me if I was just a teeny bit irritated when you joined in with just that sort of rant. But you know what? Thanks for the insults. Those were real helpful.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

I do not wonder "why" anything. If you were around me I'd be to busy knockin' that shit you call ideas out of your ugly mugg, or staring at the space between your eyes, to come up with my stimulating and thought provoking posts. So, I will not hang around you or wonder why you won't hang around me...So, you are free now to go back to rubbing your worm to Internet porn...limey!

PS. Take the short bread out of your Arse. You tea sipping queen.

PSS. Silly me I thought you were Citz...Damn you are no fun you sissy...or is it jarhead? I hear you sure can shine some boots.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I wonder if he's one of ShadowFly/River6213's many personalities.

Yeah, she let it slip again, I think.
Trollishness aside, I feel like maybe we can do business. We must all acknowledge the little Luthor in us.

Sherlock Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:57 PM

chrisisall wrong this time. Can happen to the best of us sherlock.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:07 PM

Then don't be a copycat, and I won't MAKE the mistake, okay?

Just Watson Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:12 PM

Ok watson.

PS. chris Eatsshitisall..

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:13 PM

Citizen,

No, I couldn't pay you, it wouldn't be legal. But I thought Michael Howard was aces. I hear the new Tory shake-up is actually a Blair conspiracy, so I'd probably have to vote libdem. I wouldn't vote for ne~~ocon~~w labor

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:16 PM

republicans are corrupt capitalist lex luthor and democrats are moralistic pc fascist superman.

we need more moderate green arrow and catwoman to take control

I think what we need is extremely expensive and powerful kryptonite with no resale value.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:19 PM

anti-mason,
i don't think 9-11 even if proven as a hillary-cheney conspiracy, there would still be other dems and reps. Don't see it would have a major effect. A friend of mine suggests that political parties should be banned, everyone should have to run on their own personal merits.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I do not wonder "why" anything. If you were around me I'd be to busy knockin' that shit you call ideas out of your ugly mugg, or staring at the space between your eyes, to come up with my stimulating and thought provoking posts. So, I will not hang around you or wonder why you won't hang around me...So, you are free now to go back to rubbing your worm to Internet porn...limey!

PS. Take the short bread out of your Arse. You tea sipping queen.

PSS. Silly me I thought you were Citz...Damn you are no fun you sissy...or is it jarhead? I hear you sure can shine some boots.

Ah, Kane/River/Shadowfly. We can always count on you to drag the level of discourse down to petty, unoriginal insults, homophobic ranting and imperious commandments. You have no idea what a boon you are to my self esteem. Thank you.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:59 PM