Printable View
So, you are so disgusted by personal attacks and unfounded allegations that you make personal attacks and allege that carrying signs borders on terrorism?Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
Grown man bellowing in a 15 year olds face? Laughing at an old lady walking into a sliding glass door? Not really things that I would do. You'll have to excuse me if I honestly don't get the humor.Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
Just so I'm not mistaken, which was the personal attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I resent the implication. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Just smugly imply that you have it better than others. It's the "way" to do it now.
"basement dwellers", "mouth breathers", etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
Heh. Well, candidness can redeem a lot. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
Didn't read the whole thread but here are some comments:
1. Americans (about half) have no idea what socialism is, where by one has to differentiate between the one in Northern Europe and the one in former SVU or North Korea.
2. It is always interesting to see that often poor to middle-class people are against socialism, although a country like Denmark has the highest living standard in the world and US is far down. That tells me that those people are (wrongly) thinking that one day there is the American dream for them and they will be rich.
3. Racism is still going on here and who believes it changes with a black president is naive. However, racism is not typical American but typical human.
4. Unfortunately, I have to agree with some comments that Obama is not doing the job it was expected from him. However, like any other president he has to learn to be a president. Nobody is born that way. His bipartisan ideas, forget them. Just push democratic ideas. Those were the ones who voted for him. Obama has to learn to make decisions whithout making everybody happy. That is impossible.
Well I would hope you understand that I don't mean to include everyone with a difference of opinion in what are justifiably insults. It's not a fear of differences or a "kill it with fire" blanket attitude. The things an educated man who knows his history are afraid of are not up for chastising so I hope you don't think I just back hand instead of attempt to understand. But I am intolerant of claims that the sky is falling and so try to delineate appropriately so the intelligent don't feel included. I'll try to refrain since it is too difficult to disclaim any statement that may be used as fodder for imploding a discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
i agree with everything Cancerinform said.
1. Just as many don't know what capitalism is either. Take Michael Moore for example. Last night, on Bill Maher's show, he claimed that the opposite of capitalism is Democracy. A genius, that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by cancerinform
2. The standard of living for the US is not way down. It is way up. This fact has been distorted regularly via manipulation of statistics and cherry-picked comparisons. Here is one example: http://www.cepr.net/documents/public...ds_2008_01.pdf . Another example are the "studies" that count home ownership as simply having a home without taking into account the size and quality of the homes.
3. Indeed. There is unfortunately a percentage of any country that holds racist views. Of course, there is also a percentage that believes that Elvis is still alive. At some point, we have to understand that there will always be fringe groups who believe stupid things. Most of the time, they aren't worth the time people spend on them.
4. Wasn't this one of the arguments against Obama as president in the first place? That we don't need someone learning on the job during this critical time.
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
I had an all afternoon discussion with a professor from Furman University today and he asked somebody an odd question.
Given how things are... I'd love to see what FL, LR, TGLC and a few others would actually answer.
If you had to ignore Democrat and Republican as labels, since they have long lost their original 100+ year meanings much as anything in a century tends to do, and was forced to choose between liberal and conservative; could you? Which would you choose? And why? Not a historical or media based answer, but one that represents truly what you feel based on your own findings, experience and rationale...
I think you should prevent a lot of misinterpretation by setting a ground rule of you define liberal and conservative as.
Conservative. I've often written here that I am loyal to conservative principles rather than to the Republican party. They do not always have conservative ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
My reason why is that I believe the evidence indicates that in most circumstances, conservative principles serve the people better than liberal ones do, when it comes to governing countries. I value personal liberty and do not want to live in a society governed by people that think that they know what is good for me at a personal level, better than I do. I also believe that more power focused in government makes the citizens more vulnerable to being abused and defrauded. For these reasons, I believe, as our founding fathers did, that we should take a conservative approach to government and afford them only the power that is absolutely necessary.
[And jAQUAN raises a good point that those terms can mean quite different things in different contexts.]
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal.
Ah... you hit the nail on the head. Even discussions need to start with a clear definition of which is, not the media-inspired renditions which are invariably biased to what's happening at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
That was his point.
i think you should just get rid of all the labels and just think of what's good for you and community as a whole. Obviously many things will have to be compromised.
The problem i see (with US and other countries, including mine) is that when you take a stance on one issue you are automatically labeled as (....) which unable you to take different stance on other issues, without being called hypocrite.
I'd be way too busy shooting/electrocuting a bunch of hypocrites in office now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jujumon
But I feel like I'm up for it...
I admit, I've remained purposefully ignorant of party missions, categorization of ideals or any such pigeonholing. I've always been more "c'mon people now" than "draw a line in the sand". I've always thought that political beliefs should be like ordering chinese food. Some from column A and some from column B plus whatever else I have a taste for so I couldn't (although I wasn't singled out in the request) state which I am.
I like a free market place. Competition is good for everyone, drives down prices, produces better and better products. But I really only identify with that on a consumer level after basic human needs are met.
I believe in a minimum quality of life from which to grow from. Not to say everyone should have the same quality, just that working 40 hours a week should afford a house, a car, food, utilities, a cop, a fireman, public education and a doctor at a minimum to put it vaguely. Those imo are basic human building blocks from which our children can pursue their dreams.
To be honest, I have trouble coming up with anything except protecting natural laws and basic human needs that the government should have a hand in. Provide, not decide. Credit card companies and telecommunications for example should be off limits to government control. If you're dumb enough to buy too many things you can't afford that's your fault which goes for the company and the consumer. If At&t wants to buy your company, there's no gun to your head.
It's not lost on me the slope that appears when you talk about free health care since in my book that would fall under basic human needs. Do we then turn around and say everyone should get free food and shelter too? It's a goal and a utopia we should definitely have in our sights but what would such an endeavor have an effect on. Off the top I can only see it increasing the price of luxury goods and services which is where I totally understand the fears of socialism. We'd basically be asking everyone to either do with less or pay more for luxury items. So clearly, I have no idea where that places me.
I like to think that yet again, a duality can be achieved where we advance out of the costs that mire us so as to balance out the costs of an upgraded life ie. hdtv's, dining out, family vacations and emergency expenses.
I'm interested to hear what you think that makes me.
Competition has not brought down heath care costs nor has it improved heath care coverage.
Which is exactly why I say my support for free market starts after basic human needs are met. My illness should not buy you lunch.
:pQuote:
Originally Posted by gerbick