? for liberals

[Annie]

while this is not directed at myself, I want to go watch the Iowa caucus returns, but feel compelled to answer at least part of this.

The Supreme Court has 'interpreted' the constitution in ways that go way beyond any attempt to literally interpret, that is what is called judical activism and has been around since at least Jefferson's time.

Some of it is good, for instance using the federalist and anti-federalist documents to justify rulings. ie., pre and post civil war.

Using the extension of due process for Brown v Board of Ed.

Some examples of beyond the parameters.

Roe v Wade, widely agreed to be bad law, but fit with the times. Not ok.

Using Brown v Board for brain dead children.
Using Brown v Board for 'least restrictive instruction', totally ignoring the rights of others.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Ok, that's understandable. As I posted 'somewhere' I feel that 'liberals' have lost their way. No longer dealing with ideals, but ideologies. I think the reason that so many Americans are now leaning GOP is that there is some clarity of what is expected:

dealing with terrorism; lowering taxes; educating children at a local level, (contrary to LNCB); civil liberties, including 2nd amendment; 10th amendment.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with those priorities and most I find commendable, but what I think needs to be more emphasized in your country (not that I really should have any say by any means) is that it's okay to agree to disagree on what people want America to be, but hopefully in that conversation, a real true comprimise can be met... maybe i'm just pipe dreaming, but being the eternal optimist that I am, I can only wish it for you.

Maybe what I'm really trying to dig up is this "you're either with us or against us" attitude that prevails. To be honest, I find is disheartening since opposition when qualified is the key to healthy debate! Just to be clear though, I meant this in no way as a comment about you!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with those priorities and most I find commendable, but what I think needs to be more emphasized in your country (not that I really should have any say by any means) is that it's okay to agree to disagree on what people want America to be, but hopefully in that conversation, a real true comprimise can be met... maybe i'm just pipe dreaming, but being the eternal optimist that I am, I can only wish it for you.

Maybe what I'm really trying to dig up is this "you're either with us or against us" attitude that prevails. To be honest, I find is disheartening since opposition when qualified is the key to healthy debate! Just to be clear though, I meant this in no way as a comment about you!!

You are pipe dreaming Isaac Brock. In typical liberal fashion you place compromise as some kind of theoretical higher good. On some issues, there can be no compromise. Many Americans, most, in fact, feel that national security is one of those issues. The only people who are still buying the "this was an illegal, unjust, war based on intentionally fabricated evidence" packet of crap are a young lunatic fringe with no knowledge of history, who've been indoctrinated by leftist professors, the trial lawyers, the race warlords, and a few other unsavory categories of miscreant.

And "you're either with us, or against us" is just a logically true statement. Either you assist us in our effort to seek out and destroy the terrorists organizations which attacked us and those who harbor them, or you don't. Are there other options. it's help or don't help. Is it so hard?

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
One of the major issues we deal with when it comes to conservative vs. liberal is this outlined below:



This is a joke, what exactly do you mean by this and state the points in a somewhat linear fashion.

Read book then criticise.

This is also a joke, You cannot hold a reasonable and intelligent debate when one side refuses to listen, be it conservative or liberal, misguided or intelligent.

that isn't even what she said. Again typical liberal thinking that if one still disagrees w/ you they must not be listening. If you read the book the author simply shows that the arguments liberals used can easily be turned against them using there arguments. i.e. it is not a stretch to say that liberals hold the sanctity of all human life near and dear yet most are pro-choice, even you can see the hypocrisy.

when did it become a point of 'winning' instead of striving together to make the country better? Thats exactly why we have the division in this country that we do. Its come down to 'I'm right, therefore those who believe differently are wrong' and damn it, thats just plain wrong.

Since most conservatives feel that if this country becomes to liberal in its policies it will invariably bring about the demise of the country it is all about 'winning'. Everyone is well aware that we have to get through this world together, we adamantly disagree however on how to do it.

I hate this most of all, not only because its erroneous in nature, but its a complete and utter fabricated lie to promote conservatism and the republican party in general.

The left hates america slant is often true in many cases. They condemn our countries 'atrocities' while ignoring those of the truly evil. If liberals realy wanted to fix the problems they are so passionate about they could, but seems they don't want to. Instead they choose to continue their never ending 'awareness' campaigns where all they do is talk. Conservatives simply don't understand why you aren't as passionate about condemning the atrocities of the bin ladden's and Saddam's of this world as you are about are own leader who is not an evil person at heart.

[/B]
The misguided ideology by the republicans that think being conservative is the ONLY way for the country to function smacks of an arrogance that should not be tolerated in this, or any other lifetime. [/B]

this is simple logic. opposing sides to an argument can't both be right.

p.s. these are criticisms to you criticims. you may have to refer to the other post to see what i'm talking about.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You are pipe dreaming Isaac Brock. In typical liberal fashion you place compromise as some kind of theoretical higher good. On some issues, there can be no compromise. Many Americans, most, in fact, feel that national security is one of those issues. The only people who are still buying the "this was an illegal, unjust, war based on intentionally fabricated evidence" packet of crap are a young lunatic fringe with no knowledge of history, who've been indoctrinated by leftist professors, the trial lawyers, the race warlords, and a few other unsavory categories of miscreant.

And "you're either with us, or against us" is just a logically true statement. Either you assist us in our effort to seek out and destroy the terrorists organizations which attacked us and those who harbor them, or you don't. Are there other options. it's help or don't help. Is it so hard?

I mentionned nothing of WMD or Iraq or the war, though I suppose one could apply that line of reasoning. I was referring to the political landscape within the US where opposition to the governing party is seemed as unpatriotic.

However to satisfy if we must discuss the specifics of Iraq here (there is a seperate thread)... What to do about terrorism can and should be debated, to avoid doing so is to risk descending into totalitarianism. You make it seem like opposing going to war with Iraq as akin to being a terrorist. As I have stated before in other threads I believe the consequences for war with Iraq will fan the flames of radical Islam and backfire, but that is one opinion. My opposition to the war is both for humanitarian reasons (which can be debated) and because I genuinely believe that it is against the fight against terror. Jim, Janeng, DK and all other members of this board have all taken various stances. I do not find them morally wrong in their stance. Morals are not a science and I believe the people who have debated the merits of their points have done so mostly with tact and reason.

This is not some far off lefty line of thought! I firmly believe that no issue should be off limits to the debate of a modern democracy, to do so is to undermine democracy and freedom itself. I strongly believe your line of thinking sets a terribly precendent.

As another note, based on modern logic the statement"you're either with us against or against us is not" is actually a bifurcation (false dilemma), where there in fact more than just two options. Casual observation can show that you can be with someone some of the time and against them some of the time.

By the way, I may be young, but I am neither a "lunatic", nor "fringe", nor have I been "indoctrinated", though I find myself in lumped for the most part in your gross over-generalization. Careful with your words.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I mentionned nothing of WMD or Iraq or the war, though I suppose one could apply that line of reasoning. I was referring to the political landscape within the US where opposition to the governing party is seemed as unpatriotic.

No. It's being opposed to protecting the security of the nation that's seen as unpatriotic. Holding the opinion that America is an evil empire of capitalist rapists and militaristic aggressors and has done nothing in terms of making the world a better place is also seen as unpatriotic. It's not the fact of their opposition which makes the unpatriot, it's the actual unpatriotic content of their own overtly stated ideals.

However to satisfy if we must discuss the specifics of Iraq here (there is a seperate thread)... What to do about terrorism can and should be debated, to avoid doing so is to risk descending into totalitarianism. You make it seem like opposing going to war with Iraq as akin to being a terrorist.

No. NOT invading Iraq made no sense after they violated the cease fire terms of the previous invasion, violated U.N. resolutions, kicked inspectors out, professed hatred for the west and America in particular, supported other terrorist organizations, raped, killed, murdered, tortured at least hundreds of thousands of people.....etc. What's the downside again? France and Germany are pissed because they had lots of side deals with Saddam? Oh no!

As I have stated before in other threads I believe the consequences for war with Iraq will fan the flames of radical Islam and backfire, but that is one opinion. My opposition to the war is both for humanitarian reasons (which can be debated) and because I genuinely believe that it is against the fight against terror. Jim, Janeng, DK and all other members of this board have all taken various stances. I do not find them morally wrong in their stance. Morals are not a science and I believe the people who have debated the merits of their points have done so mostly with tact and reason.

This is not some far off lefty line of thought! I firmly believe that no issue should be off limits to the debate of a modern democracy, to do so is to undermine democracy and freedom itself. I strongly believe your line of thinking sets a terribly precendent.

Nothing's off limits. Just don't get overly excited when unpatriotism is identified as unpatriotism.

As another note, based on modern logic the statement"you're either with us against or against us is not" is actually a bifurcation (false dilemma), where there in fact more than just two options. Casual observation can show that you can be with someone some of the time and against them some of the time.

I'm sure Bush meant specifiically the issue of the war on terror. He was not speaking of all issues, for all timey. Nice try, oh Great Deconstructo.

By the way, I may be young, but I am neither a "lunatic", nor "fringe", nor have I been "indoctrinated", though I find myself in lumped for the most part in your gross over-generalization. Careful with your words. [/B]

It's obvious you're young. And you're a bit fringy! I admire you're spirit, you're just wrong about 99.9% o' the time. Keep on tryin' sporto!


Cheers! :clap1:

 

[DKSuddeth]

Nothing's off limits. Just don't get overly excited when unpatriotism is identified as unpatriotism.

I hope you won't get too excited then when I tell you that despite your intelligence in some areas, in others you're completely ignorant, even downright stupid. I also hope it doesn't excite you when I tell you that because of your 'binary' thinking (meaning one or the other) most of your arguments will show that you are full of shit.

cheers :cof:

 

[Annie]

We can all use a bit more coffee. C'mon everyone, watch the tone everyone, look what happened to Mad How last night. lol

 

[eric]

Funny, people say GWB is dumb, Dean makes him look a card carrying member of Mensa !

 

[Annie]

Hey Eric, haven't seen you for awhile. Dean looked literally 'nuts', 'mad' if you will. Scary guy!

 

[eric]

Agreed !

Dean is his own worst political enemy !

I know I haven not been as active in a while. I needed some new challenges in my work and a couple of venture captialists I know made an offer to me that was impossible to refuse, so I have reactivated a dormant corporation which I own and have been busy putting things in place.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
No. It's being opposed to protecting the security of the nation that's seen as unpatriotic. Holding the opinion that America is an evil empire of capitalist rapists and militaristic aggressors and has done nothing in terms of making the world a better place is also seen as patriotic. It's not the fact of their opposition which makes the unpatriot, it's the actual unpatriotic content of their own overtly stated ideals.


No. NOT invading Iraq made no sense after they violated the cease fire terms of the previous invasion, violated U.N. resolutions, kicked inspectors out, professed hatred for the west and America in particular, supported other terrorist organizations, raped, killed, murdered, tortured at least hundreds of thousands of people.....etc. What's the downside again? France and Germany are pissed because they had lots of side deals with Saddam? Oh no!



Nothing's off limits. Just don't get overly excited when unpatriotism is identified as unpatriotism.



I'm sure Bush meant specifiically the issue of the war on terror. He was not speaking of all issues, for all timey. Nice try, oh Great Deconstructo.



It's obvious you're young. And you're a bit fringy! I admire you're spirit, you're just wrong about 99.9% o' the time. Keep on tryin' sporto!


Cheers! :clap1:

As much as I enjoy getting branded a laballed as a radical and admonished for my point of opinion of which you've grossly misrepresented (a casual look on other threads will show that I am a moderate, not a liberal), I'll bow out on this one. If you're interested in having a civil debate you can get back to me at any time. Until then I have no intention of starting a flame-fest.

 

[Annie]

eric, well good to see you. This may turn into an interesting election after all.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

I hope you won't get too excited then when I tell you that despite your intelligence in some areas, in others you're completely ignorant, even downright stupid. I also hope it doesn't excite you when I tell you that because of your 'binary' thinking (meaning one or the other) most of your arguments will show that you are full of shit.

cheers :cof:

Dude, either you help with the war on terror, or you don't, it's not a fallacy, or false dilemma. Give me one concrete course of action that is neither.


And of course, the personal attacks demonstrate your inability to argue effectively, and your contempt for those who can.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
As much as I enjoy getting branded a laballed as a radical and admonished for my point of opinion of which you've grossly misrepresented (a casual look on other threads will show that I am a moderate, not a liberal), I'll bow out on this one. If you're interested in having a civil debate you can get back to me at any time. Until then I have no intention of starting a flame-fest.

I haven't been uncivil. You just expect to log in here with your bullshit and not be challenged. Well this isn't a lib controlled forum, you're S.O.L.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Dude, either you help with the war on terror, or you don't, it's not a fallacy, or false dilemma. Give me one concrete course of action that is neither.


And of course, the personal attacks demonstrate your inability to argue effectively, and your contempt for those who can.

RWA, choosing one course over the other does not automatically make you the enemy, a collaborator, or unpatriotic of which a majority of the die hard rightwing has tried to proclaim. When you label somebody unpatriotic because they don't support your military actions provides enough ammunition to declare your argument a fallacy or false dilemma.

speaking of personal attacks, do you need to be reminded of the many you have done on here? As for my 'inability' to argue effectively you're still full of (insert expletive here) as I've more than effectively argued points with you as you have with me.

I'll save contempt for later if its needed.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
RWA, choosing one course over the other does not automatically make you the enemy, a collaborator, or unpatriotic of which a majority of the die hard rightwing has tried to proclaim. When you label somebody unpatriotic because they don't support your military actions provides enough ammunition to declare your argument a fallacy or false dilemma.

speaking of personal attacks, do you need to be reminded of the many you have done on here? As for my 'inability' to argue effectively you're still full of (insert expletive here) as I've more than effectively argued points with you as you have with me.

I'll save contempt for later if its needed.

Either you help in the war on terror or you don't. No one used the word enemy. That's you trying to dramatize the situation.

And your arguments are ineffective. You typically resort to some kind of self righteous, off point, emotional screed, that ends with a personal attack. But it IS fun, isn't it?

 

[eric]

Hey rtwngAvngr,

Look I am not going to come down on you at all, in fact we probably would agree on most issues, I am a conservative and active in the republican party.

One thing though I think before judging some of the members here it would serve you well to read back through some of the threads to get a better understanding of their positions. Iassc is a very well educated man, who does happen to be a moderate, not a liberal, and more importantly, he is a gentleman who has been a pleasure to have as a member. I would not judge him by a couple of posts.

 

[Annie]

Nice response Eric, I was thinking of something along the same lines. I've been hearing libs say that their patriotism is being questioned, and have wondered, 'Where?' RW is doing just that.

Personally it's not patriotism I question, sometimes just common sense.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I wrote a longer post, but then deleted it. Here's the new one.



If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck.....

He's obviously intelligent. But he is a liberal, in my opinion. I grant I could be wrong, that's just how it looks from here. Time with him in the future may change my opinion, but for now he's in my lib category, but you guys keep thinking what you want. And I'll do the same.

Or Isaac can tell me what conservative goals he holds near and dear, if he fells like it. But of course, he doesn't have to, we could just wait for time to unfold the petals of our relationship.