Phred said:
You also see no contradiction in instantly switching allegiance from Ron Paul to the candidate whose political philosophy is the most diametrically opposed to Ron Paul's. So I hope you will excuse the audience for not holding your "discernment" in particularly high esteem.
First off, its very presumptuous for you to speak for people other than yourself as it calls into question your own "discernment". Second off, it is also presumptuous for you to speak of my "contradiction" when you are not me and you clearly are presenting a convoluted viewpoint on the matter. I never "instantly switched allegiance" from Ron Paul. Ron Paul no longer was a candidate, and your reference to the most diametrically opposed political policy of Obama as compared to Ron Paul is completely exaggerated. First, the degree of separation in that regard between Obama and McCain is very limited, as he is much closer to Obama on the political scale than he is to Ron Paul. Neither of the remaining. Secondly, the decision between the two is based upon the personal nature of the candidates themselves - McCain is not fit for or suitable to be President of the United States. As you've posted before, its either one or the other, that it is a binary choice.
My choice was limited in those respects. When I clarified this matter to you before, you seemed to understand what I was saying, based upon your subsequent response at the time.
Obviously, you're simply being disingenuous in an attempt to discredit my perspective on this matter.
Quote:
The reality is that the choice is not always between being "fucked over" and not being "fucked over", the choice is more often between being a little bit "fucked over" for a short time or seriously "fucked over" for a long time.
This is a question of opinion, really. You obviously don't have the same view as most seem to have regarding this specific issue, regarding the direction for the country to be taken in, as has been evidenced in this very thread. Clearly, the potential is there for either choice or either ideology to work or not work, depending on the nature of the environment in which the ideology is implemented.
Different solutions for different times, you know?
For instance, let's stick with the present state of the country. The entire planet is struggling to prevent a global financial collapse. At the same time, the federal government has reached beyond its means in seeking to assert itself as the superpower of the world through securing American hegemony and dominant presence, and it is facing the point at which it can't continue to print and borrow money. Obviously, in order to prevent collapse of the financial markets, or, at least, the economy itself, someone is going to have to pay. Clearly, you cannot allow the middle-class to collapse, or the system goes down with them.
Now, obviously, that is a serious time, and there are two ideas on which direction to take in order to successfully navigate the potential catastrophe. Unfortunately for the right, they blew their chances in being too electable, so they are most likely not going to maintain enough representatives to produce enough influence to support their ideology going forward.
At the same time, I don't see anything that suggests that the Republican answer is the only solution that will work.
Quote:
How do you say the "one-party" rule has "blown it"? Remember who has been in control of Congress for the last two years. And in no way shape or form can anyone honestly claim the Supreme Court is a hotbed of Republicanism.
I do remember who was in control of Congress for the last two years - the Republicans. The Democrats did not have enough of a majority in the Senate to carry out their own agenda, let alone support from the Bush administration if they were able to pass it, so it isn't accurate to suggest that they are the one's who led the show.
I would think that the Supreme Court has been pretty moderate, in that sometimes they make conservative decisions and sometimes more liberal ones, depending on the situation. I think that it has a balance of power right now, so trying to blame them for the problems is probably misguided.
Quote:
This is of course thoughtless nonsense. Your argument presumes all parties are of equal worth when clearly they are not. If one party mostly wants to leave people alone and keep government out of the affairs of its constituents, and the other party wants to engage in social engineering and expand government's reach into all areas of its constituents lives, why one earth would anyone advocate a balance between the two parties?
Because history has demonstrated quite well the inherent problems that result from one extremity being expressed - the system starts to collapse. This is why there is a center of compromise, and this is why the pendulum ebbs and flows from left to right. The real question is if the direction being taken is going up or down, if it has intentions for liberty or for oppression. The extreme of the Left and the extreme of the Right could both work for oppression, although neither side necessarily would take a direction for oppression.
That's the real question, and, not surprisingly, the result from the Republican party enjoying one-party rule for the last eight years (plus four years of counterpoint to Clinton) has been a swing down into oppression.
Quote:
Define "didn't work". Everything was humming along rather nicely until the Dems decided home ownership was a civil right and resisted all attempts by Republicans to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
As I've already mentioned, different solutions for different times. Obviously, both sides can be responsible for negative results from their governance. For example, the Republicans have recently taken actions, changed laws, and simply broken the laws they couldn't change that trampled all over civil rights. Both parties are guilty of having wrong conceptions of what civil rights are.
Once again, we see how the only reason Democrats are faced with the prospects of one-party rule is because the last party who enjoyed one-party rule completely blew it when they seized the opportunity to carry the center of power too far to the right. Clearly, a swing back to the left to counter that movement to the right is necessary.
Quote:
Look, Sparky, there will never be a time when the skies are filled with rainbows and unicorn farts perfume the air with the scent of cotton candy. Again, life is never a process of choosing between good and bad. It is often a process of choosing between fair and bad. Or between bad and horrendous.
What are you talking about? Hopefully you did not presume that I was under such an assumption. I'm confused why you would mention this. 
Quote:
Of all possible times to turn total control of the country over to Democrats, a financial slump is the worst. See the Great Depression.
Hhm.... the Great Depression... Do you mean Calvin Coolidge and, of course, Herbert Hoover? 
Quote:
Explain to the audience how the electorate can undo the appointment of a Supreme Court judgeship. Or for that matter, a federal courts appellate judgeship? Obama has made no secret of his philosophy on judicial appointments. He's proud of it!
Explain to the audience how the electorate can undo any of the new government entitlement programs the Dems will enact, let alone any new government departments they'll create. Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education, and he tried mightily. How will you like being looked over by Obama's proposed national police force? Are you finally past the age when you can be drafted into "community service"? What about the military draft? Remember the military draft has always been a Democrat darling, and many Dems - Obama included - have mused repeatedly about how unfair it is that only the "desperate" choose to enlist in today's military: time the "well-off" should be made to "do their share" in the interest of "fairness".
How about your workplace? Is a union trying to force its way in there at the moment? How will you feel about no longer being able to vote secretly against unionization? Will you be comfortable with the union's bully boys knowing you voted against them?
These are just some of a long, LONG list of things that - once done - are incredibly difficult and often impossible to undo. And they are things that the vast majority of Dems want to do, are promising to do, are champing at the bit to do. You may think "moderate" Dems will oppose these measures. That may be, it may not be. But I guarantee you Obama won't oppose them.
Well, some of those things certainly seem like real concerns, even though other aspects of the direction they would take will certainly have success in alleviating the concerns the country is in today. Unfortunately, the Republican party decided to completely reject the grass-roots movement that produced a lot of support (and cash $$$) for Ron Paul because they were unwilling to concede their mistakes and embrace their core roots. If they had done so, perhaps they wouldn't have given the edge to Obama, and then perhaps they could have implemented their own idea of how to lead the nation.
--------------------
 
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
  
 
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
gluke bastid 
Prisoner#1 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
So where is their wealthy line going to stop? i say 50k.
1 2 3 all )
mushroomhunter10
Anonymous
it stars saddam
Phred
Luddite
Madtowntripper
lonestar2004