|
Post by Galadon on Nov 16, 2004 16:49:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 17, 2004 3:47:39 GMT -5
;D
Wow, where did you dig that up. That's funny. Didja take a minute and think, "Hmm, Clinton telling Dem's to drop the Gay rights issue. Hey, whataminnit, that doesn't sound right, when did he say that? Oh look, this talking head doesn't say ANYTHING about when Clinton said it or where or what was the context."
Very funny.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 17, 2004 12:29:35 GMT -5
Hmmmm, yes there was a couple blurps in the media about Clinton warning the Dems to get off the subject. But hey at least they thought they were right, until election night.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 26, 2004 17:35:06 GMT -5
Hmmmm, who lost the election. What side blames the gay marriage issue is the reason they lost, even though if false.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 27, 2004 10:37:44 GMT -5
Dude, really, seriously, STOP reading all your news from the same source. Really. It's very sad and you're just embarrassing yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 28, 2004 17:26:43 GMT -5
So reading the liberal news is where all the REAL truth is right.
How many more elections will they lose.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Nov 29, 2004 0:50:02 GMT -5
The first one that I totally disagree with. I always thought I was a firebrand of liberal revolutionary spirit, but I've seen some legitimate point to two out of three aritcles written by a very conservative columnist. Maybe I'm a moderate. A revolutionary moderate. Anyways here's what I have to say: In my state (Michigan, land of mosquitoes and snow, although rarely at the exact same time) there was a ballot initiative to change our state constitution to very clearly disallow civil unions and other forms of "gay marriage". You know why they put that on the ballot? To try and get out a bigger conservative vote. I would say the issue is a major point of contention between liberals and conservatives. Therefor, it is worth making a fuss over it and making, at the very least, protection of the current level of gay rights a major part of the liberal agenda. I find it odd that the same columnist arguing for less government interference in people's lives is also arguing for an amendment to the Constitution to limit the freedom of a segment of the population. That seems to be the problem with conservatism: pick an agenda: you can either be the people's voice fighting big government or you can be moral arbiters telling the populace what they can and can't do. You can't do both. In my experience, more Americans are for allowing gay marriage than are for banning it, but then again my family is mostly Democrats and my friends are mostly not just Democrats but also neo-Pagan and other groups on the outskirts of main stream society. I do not believe that marriage is the bed rock of our society. I think if there is anything solid underlying our society it is the Golden Rule: don't do stuff to other folks you don't want other folks doing to you. This cuts across religious lines and is the most fundamental moral rule behind our laws. Murder, rape, theft, and vandalism is all stuff that we don't want done to us, so we have agreed not to do it to others in the form of a codified set of rules. Pretty much anything with some sort of legalization movement going on (marijauna use, prostitution, and gay marriage) doesn't really set off anyone's Golden Rule senses because they can't really be inflicted on others, just made use of by those that want 'em. I also don't think our current society is worth preserving except in history text books and museums. Some societies aren't. Nazi Germany was not a society worht keeping, so we actively eliminated it. Pre-Universal Suffrage America was a society not worth keeping, so we eliminated it peacefully. Slave-based society was not worth keeping, so we fought a civil war over it. Some societies are meant for the scrap heap of history. You seem to have a taste for polemical sort of writing. What are your thoughts on mine?
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Dec 1, 2004 0:00:19 GMT -5
I don't care if you put up liberals personally. See, you seem to think the opposite of what you put up is liberal. It's not. The opposite of what you read is MODERATE. I don't care if it's moderate left or moderate right, but moderate is the opposite of the extreme and extremely out of touch "essays" you have posted.
What's wrong with America? It's that you stopped shooting your extremists and started electing them. I've heard a number of people who would like to see Colin Powel, for example, run for president. Personally, I would LOVE it if he did. A moderate candidate who opposed the war in Iraq, opposed unilateral action, is in favour of controlled government spending and is fairly relaxed when it comes to most issues.
That's what your country needs, more than anything else. To muzzle your extremists, or at least laugh at them for the jokes that they are, be they Moore or Limbaugh, and get back to reality. The only difference between your government currently and Iran, is that they are honest enough to admit when the extemists have taken control.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Dec 1, 2004 19:40:15 GMT -5
What's wrong with America? It's that you stopped shooting your extremists and started electing them. I've heard a number of people who would like to see Colin Powel, for example, run for president. Personally, I would LOVE it if he did. A moderate candidate who opposed the war in Iraq, opposed unilateral action, is in favour of controlled government spending and is fairly relaxed when it comes to most issues. That may be a bit right, but I think it's a bit off too. I think an extreme right wing candidate like Bush can get elected, but I think anyone at all on the left side of the aisle has to try for a moderate pose. Also, I personally think we need more extremists in office but we need them form other groups than the so-called right and left. The amazing thing about politics is that there aren't necessarily two sides to every issue, sometimes there's an infinite number. Of course, anything other than two sides is ignored because at some point the issue and the fight over it becomes more important than the solution. I think we need some extreme socialists and, as odd as it sounds, extreme anarchists in political office to help break us out of our comofrtable do-nothing stalemate.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Dec 1, 2004 19:43:49 GMT -5
Is it any secret that I'm a conservative. In my thinking why would I put up liberal people. Could you explain this with a few more words, please? Possibly something that follows the rules of American English grammar and spelling [use the modify button a few times, if you have to]? You know, something like I try to do. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Dec 2, 2004 0:22:51 GMT -5
I disagree Khyron. Extremists of any form are always wrong. Any time someone takes the position that there is ONLY one true way to do something and all other ways are WRONG, then you cannot even discuss alternatives. It doesn't matter if the extremist is fundy Christian, Right, Left, Islamic, or whatever. The second that someone takes the position of "My way or no way", which is the essence of any extreme position, then there can be no political process.
Society should always be about compromise. Give and take. Quid pro quo. You give something and you get something. No one is ever 100% wrong. If a person takes the position that the other side is 100% wrong, then there can be no compromise. And this leads to facism and tyranny. Whether it's through a dictatorship or simply the tyranny of the majority, painting any situation in monochrome is a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Dec 2, 2004 12:15:45 GMT -5
You have a good point, Hussar. I consider myself to be pretty far left, but I always say that it's good to have two parties (as opposed to one) so they can keep each other in check. (In D&D terms, I guess you'd say I'm like a druid who revers the Balance but has chosen a side anyway.) But that's not really the best situation. If all our political bodies were made up of fundamentallists from two opposing sides then we'd never get anything done since we'd spend more time arguing than compromising. The best situation would probably be a majority of moderate, inteligent, open-minded politicians with a couple who lean to one side or another. The more polarized members would present their arguments, but the majority would be able to look at those arguments and pick the "best" solution from an impartial point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Dec 3, 2004 4:08:28 GMT -5
You'd make a good Canadian Merk. ANd I mean that as a compliment. Canada has had a viable three party system for decades. In the last decade, we fragmented into a multi-party system which has ensured that one party will stay in power until such time as the opposition can unite and boot them out. The problem has become that a number of the smaller parties out there are not moderate. They're pretty agressively extreme, particularly about regional issues. This means that certain parties cannot or will not win outside of their own region. Since only one party currently is moderate enough to appeal to a broader range of people, we've had the same party in power for some 12 years now, with the same PM for 10 of those. (Or thereabouts) When politicians decide to only listen to the loudest voices, they ignore the majority, which, as a rule, tends to be pretty quiet. The large majority just wants to get on with their lives, and have today be pretty much like yesterday and maybe tomorrow a little better. It's the loudmouths amongst us who get the press, grab the headlines and make most of the problems. Take the California school that just prevented a teacher from bringing in the Declaration of Independence because, in the teacher's words, it contained references to God. The apparently liberal press (yeah right) has jumped up and down all over this screaming repression, and attacks on Christian faith. Never mind that this guy has been preaching to his class and there had been numerous complaints against the teacher previous to this. That doesn't matter. FAITH IS BEING ATTACKED AND WE MUST DEFEND IT!!! Scream the extremists. Facts simply don't matter to people who cannot compromise.
|
|
|
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Jan 31, 2005 19:28:14 GMT -5
OK, whats up with all this BS about having to get a policical label stamped on your head??? Is it so you can feel a sence of belonging to a clique?
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Feb 1, 2005 10:32:18 GMT -5
After traveling around for 20 years, there are very few people who are independant. For some it's being apart of a group. For most it is what they believe. If you listen to a person long enough, note I said listen not just hear the words, you can tell what way they lean, right or left.
|
|