Has anyone changed

[onecut39]

I learned quite a bit on a few issues. I think I'm more open to gay marriage than I was when I got here....not so much against it as I was but still not convinced it's a good thing for society. I think I'm at the point where I think we might as well try it, I don't really think it can make things much worse.

I do think our country is worse off today than when I came here.

Congratulations! You are a first in my book.

Live long and prosper

 

[flacaltenn]

The need to "impress" is usually something dreamt up by those who love putting the onus onto others.

I support having a military that can kick the ass of the world because it makes sense.
I support Voter ID laws because they make sense.
I support gay marriage because it is none of my business who loves whom.
I support a woman's reproductive choice because that is simply a fundamental right in my view.
I support the President because I think he'll appoint judges who will agree with me on those matters.

Whether or not that impresses or disgusts others is no concern of mine. I do enjoy reading the diatribes of the partisans here on both sides. I will admit that the right wing lunatics are much more hilarious than the left wing lunatics....one of the right wing loonies was accusing another poster of beating their wife.

Remember the last part of what I said..

"Those folks will NEVER be never be satisfied with the political leadership or the absolute mediocracy that comes from policy formed primarily by compromise"

Are you satistified with our hamstrung political "leadership"?

On the whole, no.

Do you like the mediocracy of now punishing the military because Congress failed to cut the budget? Or a compromise on gay marraige or any other issues you feel strongly about?

Cuts need to be made across the board. The Defense Dept is spending nearly $0.50 of every dollar spent on defense on the globe. This "cut" won't mean jack in real terms.

As for Gay Marriage, the federal leadership is fine for the forseeable future. Eventually, it will be ratified nationwide.

[
What I'm saying is a practical guide to political survival.. Find a camp that fits MOST of your views.. Work WITHIN that camp to change the views that don't fit..

Much easier than battling with your sworn enemies who aren't gonna change..

Good luck with that.

Maybe we should all join the NRA and then when a meeting is called, we should vote to disband...I get what you're saying.

I prefer to not belong to either camp and vote for the person, not her party.

If there were ENOUGH dues paying members with your views in the NRA -- they would listen. I was thinking more along the lines of containing the DISSENT WITHIN the PARTIES. For instance resolving splits between mainstream DEMS and the Progressives who are currently in charge. Or between Country Club Republicans and Conservatives and T.Party within the Republican ranks, Or between the idealogically pure and the realists in the Libertarian Party.. THAT'S where the issues need to get homogenized and made to fit a CONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY that the members can live with..

To do that -- my bet is we need MORE PARTIES. THe largest part of the turmoil and POLARIZATION today is that we don't have political institutions that can be molded to our beliefs. We've got only 2 book marks that only have to be less corrupt and less inept than the other one to retain power.

Open UP the American political process and we can STOP this increasing polarization and public conflict..

 

[Avatar4321]

Ive changed my position on a few things, and more important further developed my position on other things.

I'm probably more libertarian on issues than i previously was.

But the positions that have solidified most is I realize how necessary it is we get God involved in our lives and change the culture if we have a real chance at restoring our Republic. Though i think thats more from observations than from anyone arguing a position.

 

[Noomi]

Wonder if anyone on these boards has changed their position on one or more political issues as a result of the arguments put forth by a board poster? Has anyone changed their politics?

Not on this forum, but on another forum years ago I went from being am extreme pro lifer (the type who thought women should be executed for aborting) to being pro choice.
Sometimes, once you listen to the other side, you start to see things differently, and realise your way of thinking is wrong.

 

[Shelzin]

Wonder if anyone on these boards has changed their position on one or more political issues as a result of the arguments put forth by a board poster? Has anyone changed their politics?

Not on this forum, but on another forum years ago I went from being am extreme pro lifer (the type who thought women should be executed for aborting) to being pro choice.

*waves that off*

Sometimes, once you listen to the other side, you start to see things differently, and realise your way of thinking is wrong.

Now that is a sign of intelligence. Well... I think so anyway... I could be a intellectual retard and not know it, because.... You know... When you are an intellectual retard you're too retarded to know your intellectually retarded.

 

[francoHFW]

The angry dupes will never care about facts, it's just they're not too smart, and will always vote against the black commie Kenyan, his Marxist minions, and the minority/pervert lovers lol. Luckily, they continue to fight the spirit of history and the information age, futile in the long run. See sig. Bring back the fairness doctine and stop the outrageous Pubcrappe machine..
A few Indies will learn something.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Not on this forum, but on another forum years ago I went from being am extreme pro lifer (the type who thought women should be executed for aborting) to being pro choice.
Sometimes, once you listen to the other side, you start to see things differently, and realise your way of thinking is wrong.

I changed my views on abortion....while I wouldnt choose it .......it is legal and I dont want a woman who would chose such a thing in most circumstances to be a mother, nor want to have to pay to raise her unwanted spawn.

 

[candycorn]

Remember the last part of what I said..

"Those folks will NEVER be never be satisfied with the political leadership or the absolute mediocracy that comes from policy formed primarily by compromise"

Are you satistified with our hamstrung political "leadership"?

On the whole, no.


Cuts need to be made across the board. The Defense Dept is spending nearly $0.50 of every dollar spent on defense on the globe. This "cut" won't mean jack in real terms.

As for Gay Marriage, the federal leadership is fine for the forseeable future. Eventually, it will be ratified nationwide.

[
What I'm saying is a practical guide to political survival.. Find a camp that fits MOST of your views.. Work WITHIN that camp to change the views that don't fit..

Much easier than battling with your sworn enemies who aren't gonna change..

Good luck with that.

Maybe we should all join the NRA and then when a meeting is called, we should vote to disband...I get what you're saying.

I prefer to not belong to either camp and vote for the person, not her party.

If there were ENOUGH dues paying members with your views in the NRA -- they would listen. I was thinking more along the lines of containing the DISSENT WITHIN the PARTIES. For instance resolving splits between mainstream DEMS and the Progressives who are currently in charge. Or between Country Club Republicans and Conservatives and T.Party within the Republican ranks, Or between the idealogically pure and the realists in the Libertarian Party.. THAT'S where the issues need to get homogenized and made to fit a CONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY that the members can live with..

To do that -- my bet is we need MORE PARTIES. THe largest part of the turmoil and POLARIZATION today is that we don't have political institutions that can be molded to our beliefs. We've got only 2 book marks that only have to be less corrupt and less inept than the other one to retain power.

Open UP the American political process and we can STOP this increasing polarization and public conflict..

I hold that parties are the problem.

You aren't (I don't think) one of these but I'm continuously amazed at how many on the GOP side of the ledger speak so highly of the Republican Party but spit each and everytime after they say the word "union". They're one in the same. Both care only about their members, not the body their members serve; in a union's case that may be GM, in the GOP/DNC case that is the government.

The largest problem facing the American people isn't Democrats or Republicans; it's that we live under the rules written 225 years ago. At that time, the common enemy was at the gates so there wasn't that much time for partisan bickering. As America became a great nation due to the setting aside of partisan differences, the enemies became less lethal and more distant. When that happens, partisan bickering becomes more amplified. Thus resulting in the gridlock we have now.

More parties aren't the answer. The answer is to further perfect the document to WRITE IN RULES that will ensure the nation's business at least gets considered. Are you happy with what Harry Reid has done; basically in essence pocket vetoing bills on his own as Senate Majority Leader? No? Well, he's playing by the rules in the Constitution which is to say the Constitution has almost zero rules on how the Senate or the House will operate. I'm thought of as a liberal here so I decided to call out a Democrat. John Boehner is doing the same in the House.

For just one very small example of a rule that needs to be written into the document; we need to ensure that one house will consider the work of the other house within 90 days and have a full floor vote on the measure. Or call it 60 days. Or 30 days. Or whenever. But it makes the representatives put their name next to a YEA or NAY vote; not hide behind some political appointee's discretion.

No, more political parties aren't the answer. I offer that they are precisely the wrong prescription for what ails the government.

 

[zeke]

I know the one thing I have learned by visiting messaage boards is that there does not seem to be any pragmatic people left or right in this country.

And I guess the second thing I learned is that most people on a message board are still under the impression that this activity means something when it don't. Otherwise I don't think you would see people making the same argument over and over and over.

And the third thing I learned (who knew this would be so educating) is that most posters still don't understand that we live in a plutocracy. A nice plutocracy but still; Of the rich by the rich for the rich.

But the biggest question that I can't seem to answer is why middle class people like us posters on a message board, continue to worry about the ultra rich in this country.
I just can't figure that part out. They got it all going on but some feel the need to defend them. Weird.

 

[OODA_Loop]

But the biggest question that I can't seem to answer is why middle class people like us posters on a message board, continue to worry about the ultra rich in this country.
I just can't figure that part out. They got it all going on but some feel the need to defend them. Weird.

The rich employ the middle class. Simple.

 

[zeke]

But the biggest question that I can't seem to answer is why middle class people like us posters on a message board, continue to worry about the ultra rich in this country.
I just can't figure that part out. They got it all going on but some feel the need to defend them. Weird.

The rich employ the middle class. Simple.

No, that is a simple answer. And a great sound bite. Now if you are going to define rich as making a 100k a year. Maybe.

But the fact remains that ultra rich people making millions and millions of dollars a year are not the ones opening new business's employing thousands of middle class people.

But keep on telling yourself that. So I can keep on wondering why you believe that.

And even if you were right. Why would you be worrying about them? Do you think someone having 200000 dollars a MONTH income would be suffering if their income was only 190,000. a month?

Do you have any rich people worrying about you? Any rich people going to Congress and demanding that Congress do SOMETHING for the middle class. Without giving the rich some benefit.

Like I said; I just don't understand that defense of the ultra wealthy. They have never had it better than right now. And us in the middle haven't had it worse in a long time.

 

[OODA_Loop]

But the fact remains that ultra rich people making millions and millions of dollars a year are not the ones opening new business's employing thousands of middle class people.

But keep on telling yourself that. So I can keep on wondering why you believe that.

Your real world business experience seems lacking. In addition to running many businesses, the rich capitalize the majority of other business opportunities.

That is why out of the two choices, Romney clearly has the most experience to bring some semblance of confidence.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And even if you were right. Why would you be worrying about them? Do you think someone having 200000 dollars a MONTH income would be suffering if their income was only 190,000. a month?

Taxation is not based on relative suffering. Come on now.

 

[Freewill]

Reading the posts from whom I consider liberal have made my political views stronger.

 

[zeke]

And even if you were right. Why would you be worrying about them? Do you think someone having 200000 dollars a MONTH income would be suffering if their income was only 190,000. a month?

Taxation is not based on relative suffering. Come on now.

So taxation is not based on relative suffering. Wtf are you trying to say. You know, with all your "business experience".

Or are you contending that the ultra rich are struggling at this point in time?

And as I have asked many of you rich lovers. Where are the jobs YOU claim they make?
Why has UE been so stuborn when the ultra rich are doing so well........

Name the last huge business recently opened by the ultra rich where they went out and hired thousands of Americans. Not Chinese, not Indians, not Paki..... Americans.

 

[BDBoop]

Wonder if anyone on these boards has changed their position on one or more political issues as a result of the arguments put forth by a board poster? Has anyone changed their politics?

Yes. I've trenched full left, based on the horrific behavior by the assholes on the right.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Wonder if anyone on these boards has changed their position on one or more political issues as a result of the arguments put forth by a board poster? Has anyone changed their politics?

my essential politics?

no.

but i have been convinced that i was wrong on an issue.

I was wrong once. I thought for a moment, I had made a mistake.

 

[flacaltenn]

And even if you were right. Why would you be worrying about them? Do you think someone having 200000 dollars a MONTH income would be suffering if their income was only 190,000. a month?

Taxation is not based on relative suffering. Come on now.

So taxation is not based on relative suffering. Wtf are you trying to say. You know, with all your "business experience".

Or are you contending that the ultra rich are struggling at this point in time?

And as I have asked many of you rich lovers. Where are the jobs YOU claim they make?
Why has UE been so stuborn when the ultra rich are doing so well........

Name the last huge business recently opened by the ultra rich where they went out and hired thousands of Americans. Not Chinese, not Indians, not Paki..... Americans.

THat's an easy one dude.. The current oil/gas boom in N. Dakota.. Need more?

 

[flacaltenn]

On the whole, no.


Cuts need to be made across the board. The Defense Dept is spending nearly $0.50 of every dollar spent on defense on the globe. This "cut" won't mean jack in real terms.

As for Gay Marriage, the federal leadership is fine for the forseeable future. Eventually, it will be ratified nationwide.




Good luck with that.

Maybe we should all join the NRA and then when a meeting is called, we should vote to disband...I get what you're saying.

I prefer to not belong to either camp and vote for the person, not her party.

If there were ENOUGH dues paying members with your views in the NRA -- they would listen. I was thinking more along the lines of containing the DISSENT WITHIN the PARTIES. For instance resolving splits between mainstream DEMS and the Progressives who are currently in charge. Or between Country Club Republicans and Conservatives and T.Party within the Republican ranks, Or between the idealogically pure and the realists in the Libertarian Party.. THAT'S where the issues need to get homogenized and made to fit a CONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY that the members can live with..

To do that -- my bet is we need MORE PARTIES. THe largest part of the turmoil and POLARIZATION today is that we don't have political institutions that can be molded to our beliefs. We've got only 2 book marks that only have to be less corrupt and less inept than the other one to retain power.

Open UP the American political process and we can STOP this increasing polarization and public conflict..

I hold that parties are the problem.

You aren't (I don't think) one of these but I'm continuously amazed at how many on the GOP side of the ledger speak so highly of the Republican Party but spit each and everytime after they say the word "union". They're one in the same. Both care only about their members, not the body their members serve; in a union's case that may be GM, in the GOP/DNC case that is the government.

The largest problem facing the American people isn't Democrats or Republicans; it's that we live under the rules written 225 years ago. At that time, the common enemy was at the gates so there wasn't that much time for partisan bickering. As America became a great nation due to the setting aside of partisan differences, the enemies became less lethal and more distant. When that happens, partisan bickering becomes more amplified. Thus resulting in the gridlock we have now.

More parties aren't the answer. The answer is to further perfect the document to WRITE IN RULES that will ensure the nation's business at least gets considered. Are you happy with what Harry Reid has done; basically in essence pocket vetoing bills on his own as Senate Majority Leader? No? Well, he's playing by the rules in the Constitution which is to say the Constitution has almost zero rules on how the Senate or the House will operate. I'm thought of as a liberal here so I decided to call out a Democrat. John Boehner is doing the same in the House.

For just one very small example of a rule that needs to be written into the document; we need to ensure that one house will consider the work of the other house within 90 days and have a full floor vote on the measure. Or call it 60 days. Or 30 days. Or whenever. But it makes the representatives put their name next to a YEA or NAY vote; not hide behind some political appointee's discretion.

No, more political parties aren't the answer. I offer that they are precisely the wrong prescription for what ails the government.

Reid and Boehner get away with that dictatorial power because THEY OWN the votes. By perpetuating the myth that only 2 parties can exist -- you've given an automatic bias to the system for gridlock.. It's a rare politician that can defy their party and live to tell about it. Like Joe Lieberman for instance, who only wanted a stronger defense and more rational foreign policy -- just like you do.. Defy the party and you will be operating from a broom closet with a rotary phone and a parrot for a secretary. And come election time A TRUE BLOODED party member will be running against you in the primary with a war chest.

There are not 535 representatives in Washington anymore -- there are 2 votes. Because the members cannot escape punishment for disobedience. AND there is nowhere else for them to go to make their views different.

The skirmishes need to be CONTAINED within the parties. Right now the ENTIRE COUNTRY believes there are just TWO CAMPS. Even if the "expansion teams" don't WIN a lot of seats, they will help refine the debate of the issues and DEFUSE the polarity.

OPEN UP the system and put 3 or 4 legs on that chair and a more stable system results. Even if the major role of minority parties is to keep the major parties honest.

You would not want just 2 unions representing labor. And labor actually doesn't give 2 farts about career paths or personal achievement. And the membership is STUCK with a leadership that thinks jobs are the same as they've always been..

If you are "so open-minded" as you claim --- you wouldn't be leaping to use FORCE of law to change the way that Congress works. You would be approving of the EASY fixes first and allowing MORE CHOICE for people to organize and express their views...

 

[IGetItAlready]

Wonder if anyone on these boards has changed their position on one or more political issues as a result of the arguments put forth by a board poster? Has anyone changed their politics?

I've not been "converted" HOWEVER, in a couple of rare cases I have heard some interesting and even thought provoking arguments in support of opposing points of view.

Isn't that why we all come here?