So I notice a lot of you are.... extreme.

[alan1]

...At least a little.

I hear a lot of you like to generalize all liberals as being the same. Some of you say that they are liars; they are lazy; they are socialists that are ruining the country, etc. Come on, really? ALL liberals are lazy hippies and socialist pigs? Do you even know any liberals personally? Seeing a piece about them on Fox News doesn't count.

Isn't that the problem with politics today? They have become so polarized. Do you know how to get the truth behind political issues? It's by thinking crtically. You look at both the conservative and the liberal POV, and decide who is right.

Don't watch Fox News or MSNBC... or better yet, watch them both!

I'd give liberals the same speech, but there doesn't appear to be any on this forum

Uhhhhhhhh....

The problem with being in the middle of the road is that, it is said, there is a long streak painted yellow on it (meaning of course that those in the middle like myself are somehow scared to take one hard stance or the other--not true by the way).

The problem with being an extremest is that you're either in the woods to the left or the woods to the right of the road. You're entrenched.


The problem for the country is that we have too many in the woods on the left and the right and the only way to get anywhere is to get on the road and go!

The cynics will point out that the road goes both ways, progress and retreat. Those who worry about retreat, I submit, are simply put, scared. Get out of the woods and move the country forward.

nice analogies there, candycorn, but I think I must differ in opinion.

Holding an opposing opinion (right or left) that one refuses to yield may very well be 'entrenched", but when that opinion is is held based upon (individually held principles) right or wrong, there is nothing wrong with it. Not everything is worthy of compromise, some things are worthy of drawing a line and standing firm.

Refusing to retreat is not fear (scared), it is often principle. I would posit that compromise is more akin to fear (scared) than standing by ones beliefs is.

 

[BDBoop]

Obviously.

 

[Dragon]

Holding an opposing opinion (right or left) that one refuses to yield may very well be 'entrenched", but when that opinion is is held based upon (individually held principles) right or wrong, there is nothing wrong with it.

Hmm, not necessarily so. In addition to principles, it's also important that FACTS be understood correctly, otherwise even the soundest and most honorable principles will lead to wrong-headed policy.

It seems to me that those on the right err in regard to fact far more often than in regard to principle. Among the most common errors are:

1) the idea that increasing the wealth of the wealthiest creates opportunities for everyone else;

2) the related idea that all capital will be invested in job-creating ventures if left alone by the government;

3) the idea that America can never have too much military strength;

4) the idea that soundly supported scientific claims, including global warming and peak oil, are the product of some sort of conspiracy to deceive; and

5) the idea that America can compete with foreign countries that subsidize such crucial national resources as education and health care without doing the same ourselves.

These are not errors of principle but errors of fact. A correct understanding of what is real would result in different policies being advocated, without any change at all in underlying moral or ethical principles.

 

[paulitician]

Good points but there are very few real Liberals left in today's Democratic Party. They've been over-run by radicalized Socialists/Progressives. There is a difference between the two. Real Liberals and real Conservatives can actually agree on a lot. However this cannot be said of Socialists/Progressives. Real Liberals & Conservatives support more individual freedom for Citizens. I see no indication of that from Socialists/Progressives. All i see from them is a dogmatic zeal for more Government in Citizens' lives. Maybe it's time to update these labels? Real Liberals & Conservatives are very hard to find in today's America.

 

[candycorn]

...At least a little.

I hear a lot of you like to generalize all liberals as being the same. Some of you say that they are liars; they are lazy; they are socialists that are ruining the country, etc. Come on, really? ALL liberals are lazy hippies and socialist pigs? Do you even know any liberals personally? Seeing a piece about them on Fox News doesn't count.

Isn't that the problem with politics today? They have become so polarized. Do you know how to get the truth behind political issues? It's by thinking crtically. You look at both the conservative and the liberal POV, and decide who is right.

Don't watch Fox News or MSNBC... or better yet, watch them both!

I'd give liberals the same speech, but there doesn't appear to be any on this forum

Uhhhhhhhh....

The problem with being in the middle of the road is that, it is said, there is a long streak painted yellow on it (meaning of course that those in the middle like myself are somehow scared to take one hard stance or the other--not true by the way).

The problem with being an extremest is that you're either in the woods to the left or the woods to the right of the road. You're entrenched.


The problem for the country is that we have too many in the woods on the left and the right and the only way to get anywhere is to get on the road and go!

The cynics will point out that the road goes both ways, progress and retreat. Those who worry about retreat, I submit, are simply put, scared. Get out of the woods and move the country forward.

nice analogies there, candycorn, but I think I must differ in opinion.

Holding an opposing opinion (right or left) that one refuses to yield may very well be 'entrenched", but when that opinion is is held based upon (individually held principles) right or wrong, there is nothing wrong with it. Not everything is worthy of compromise, some things are worthy of drawing a line and standing firm.

Refusing to retreat is not fear (scared), it is often principle. I would posit that compromise is more akin to fear (scared) than standing by ones beliefs is.

Give examples. I'll give you religion. I'll give you anything that comes with a body count.

 

[bobcollum]

The problem is everyone thinks they know everything, which is absurd because I'm the only one that really does.

 

[Sunshine]

...At least a little.

I hear a lot of you like to generalize all liberals as being the same. Some of you say that they are liars; they are lazy; they are socialists that are ruining the country, etc. Come on, really? ALL liberals are lazy hippies and socialist pigs? Do you even know any liberals personally? Seeing a piece about them on Fox News doesn't count.

Isn't that the problem with politics today? They have become so polarized. Do you know how to get the truth behind political issues? It's by thinking crtically. You look at both the conservative and the liberal POV, and decide who is right.

Don't watch Fox News or MSNBC... or better yet, watch them both!

I'd give liberals the same speech, but there doesn't appear to be any on this forum

Is this all you can think of to post about?

 

[alan1]

Uhhhhhhhh....

The problem with being in the middle of the road is that, it is said, there is a long streak painted yellow on it (meaning of course that those in the middle like myself are somehow scared to take one hard stance or the other--not true by the way).

The problem with being an extremest is that you're either in the woods to the left or the woods to the right of the road. You're entrenched.


The problem for the country is that we have too many in the woods on the left and the right and the only way to get anywhere is to get on the road and go!

The cynics will point out that the road goes both ways, progress and retreat. Those who worry about retreat, I submit, are simply put, scared. Get out of the woods and move the country forward.

nice analogies there, candycorn, but I think I must differ in opinion.

Holding an opposing opinion (right or left) that one refuses to yield may very well be 'entrenched", but when that opinion is is held based upon (individually held principles) right or wrong, there is nothing wrong with it. Not everything is worthy of compromise, some things are worthy of drawing a line and standing firm.

Refusing to retreat is not fear (scared), it is often principle. I would posit that compromise is more akin to fear (scared) than standing by ones beliefs is.

Give examples. I'll give you religion. I'll give you anything that comes with a body count.

I'll give you this example,

A mugger approaches me and demands that I give him $100 from my wallet.
I can compromise at $50 or stand by my principles and tell him to fuck off.
I choose standing by my principles of not acquiescing to criminals. No compromise on my part.

 

[candycorn]

nice analogies there, candycorn, but I think I must differ in opinion.

Holding an opposing opinion (right or left) that one refuses to yield may very well be 'entrenched", but when that opinion is is held based upon (individually held principles) right or wrong, there is nothing wrong with it. Not everything is worthy of compromise, some things are worthy of drawing a line and standing firm.

Refusing to retreat is not fear (scared), it is often principle. I would posit that compromise is more akin to fear (scared) than standing by ones beliefs is.

Give examples. I'll give you religion. I'll give you anything that comes with a body count.

I'll give you this example,

A mugger approaches me and demands that I give him $100 from my wallet.
I can compromise at $50 or stand by my principles and tell him to fuck off.
I choose standing by my principles of not acquiescing to criminals. No compromise on my part.

Seriously, give an example or are you this ill-equipped to defend your own stance?

 

[alan1]

Give examples. I'll give you religion. I'll give you anything that comes with a body count.

I'll give you this example,

A mugger approaches me and demands that I give him $100 from my wallet.
I can compromise at $50 or stand by my principles and tell him to fuck off.
I choose standing by my principles of not acquiescing to criminals. No compromise on my part.

Seriously, give an example or are you this ill-equipped to defend your own stance?

After your analogies, you now want to fling the subtle insult of calling me "ill equipped"?
Your disagreement on standing firm to ones principles shows disagreement to the practice, not the position.
Is that really where you want to stand?

 

[bripat9643]

I am not a Marxist. I was, years ago, but study of Marx showed me where he got things seriously wrong -- which I doubt you would be able to identify. However, although you're wrong about that:

You think you're not a Marxist, as do most of the leftwingers in this forum, but most of the ideas you spout come down from Karl Marx, one way or another.

Do you actually believe your views are "mainstream?"

No, I don't. And that puts me in a far more rational category than, for example, yourself. Your views are no more mainstream than mine. The difference is that I know that, and you don't.[/QUOTE]

Where have I ever claimed my views are mainstream? I'm the most radical right-winger in this forum. However, unlike you, I don't equate being "extreme" with being wrong.

 

[candycorn]

I'll give you this example,

A mugger approaches me and demands that I give him $100 from my wallet.
I can compromise at $50 or stand by my principles and tell him to fuck off.
I choose standing by my principles of not acquiescing to criminals. No compromise on my part.

Seriously, give an example or are you this ill-equipped to defend your own stance?

After your analogies, you now want to fling the subtle insult of calling me "ill equipped"?
Your disagreement on standing firm to ones principles shows disagreement to the practice, not the position.
Is that really where you want to stand?

Just please show us a political instance where there is zero room for compromise instead of talking about muggers and of course resulting to personal insults.

 

[Dragon]

You think you're not a Marxist, as do most of the leftwingers in this forum, but most of the ideas you spout come down from Karl Marx, one way or another.

I know I am not a Marxist, because unlike you, I know what a Marxist is. Having ideas that owe something, somehow, to Marx does not make one a Marxist. Believing in the central Marxist program (capitalism leading to socialism leading to the withering of the state and a classless, anarchistic utopia) makes one a Marxist.

I don't believe in that program, therefore I am not a Marxist. I don't say that what I do believe in isn't just as far to the left as Marx was, or nearly so -- and in a few ways more so. I merely say that I am not a Marxist, as a matter of technical accuracy, and that is the truth.

Where have I ever claimed my views are mainstream? I'm the most radical right-winger in this forum. However, unlike you, I don't equate being "extreme" with being wrong.

LOL well, I don't equate being extreme with being wrong, either. I just equate believing what YOU believe with being wrong.

All right, maybe you realize you're a wacko. There are a fair number of right-wing whack jobs on this forum who don't, just the same.

 

[alan1]

Seriously, give an example or are you this ill-equipped to defend your own stance?

After your analogies, you now want to fling the subtle insult of calling me "ill equipped"?
Your disagreement on standing firm to ones principles shows disagreement to the practice, not the position.
Is that really where you want to stand?

Just please show us a political instance where there is zero room for compromise instead of talking about muggers and of course resulting to personal insults.

Twas not I that resulted to personal insults, it was thee.

Now then, a political instance with no room for compromise, I suppose that rests with the beholder of said political position and what they are or or are not willing to compromise on.
I'll draw a line on being forced to engage in commerce. What about you?

 

[candycorn]

After your analogies, you now want to fling the subtle insult of calling me "ill equipped"?
Your disagreement on standing firm to ones principles shows disagreement to the practice, not the position.
Is that really where you want to stand?

Just please show us a political instance where there is zero room for compromise instead of talking about muggers and of course resulting to personal insults.

Twas not I that resulted to personal insults, it was thee.

Now then, a political instance with no room for compromise, I suppose that rests with the beholder of said political position and what they are or or are not willing to compromise on.
I'll draw a line on being forced to engage in commerce. What about you?

Your response was brain dead; we were talking about politics and you bring up mugging? I guess assuming a certain level of intelligence in those with whom I debate is my problem.

I think there is endless room for compromise on all topics concerning politics. If you feel like actually bringing up a scenario, feel free.

 

[AmericanFirst]

...At least a little.

I hear a lot of you like to generalize all liberals as being the same. Some of you say that they are liars; they are lazy; they are socialists that are ruining the country, etc. Come on, really? ALL liberals are lazy hippies and socialist pigs? Do you even know any liberals personally? Seeing a piece about them on Fox News doesn't count.

Isn't that the problem with politics today? They have become so polarized. Do you know how to get the truth behind political issues? It's by thinking crtically. You look at both the conservative and the liberal POV, and decide who is right.

Don't watch Fox News or MSNBC... or better yet, watch them both!

I'd give liberals the same speech, but there doesn't appear to be any on this forum

With far left wingers, anything just right of center is extreme.

With left wingers common sense and intelligence is extreme.

 

[bripat9643]

Seriously, give an example or are you this ill-equipped to defend your own stance?

After your analogies, you now want to fling the subtle insult of calling me "ill equipped"?
Your disagreement on standing firm to ones principles shows disagreement to the practice, not the position.
Is that really where you want to stand?

Just please show us a political instance where there is zero room for compromise instead of talking about muggers and of course resulting to personal insults.

You don't like the mugger question because it's the perfect example of what you asked for. You don't compromise with criminals intent on robbing you.

Here's a question with zero room for compromise:

Should Czechoslovakia turn over the Studenten to Nazi Germany?

 

[RadiomanATL]

...At least a little.

I hear a lot of you like to generalize all liberals as being the same. Some of you say that they are liars; they are lazy; they are socialists that are ruining the country, etc. Come on, really? ALL liberals are lazy hippies and socialist pigs? Do you even know any liberals personally? Seeing a piece about them on Fox News doesn't count.

Isn't that the problem with politics today? They have become so polarized. Do you know how to get the truth behind political issues? It's by thinking crtically. You look at both the conservative and the liberal POV, and decide who is right.

Don't watch Fox News or MSNBC... or better yet, watch them both!

I'd give liberals the same speech, but there doesn't appear to be any on this forum

I notice that you're an idiot.

 

[alan1]

Just please show us a political instance where there is zero room for compromise instead of talking about muggers and of course resulting to personal insults.

Twas not I that resulted to personal insults, it was thee.

Now then, a political instance with no room for compromise, I suppose that rests with the beholder of said political position and what they are or or are not willing to compromise on.
I'll draw a line on being forced to engage in commerce. What about you?

Your response was brain dead; we were talking about politics and you bring up mugging? I guess assuming a certain level of intelligence in those with whom I debate is my problem.

I think there is endless room for compromise on all topics concerning politics. If you feel like actually bringing up a scenario, feel free.

Ahh, another insult.

Did you miss it, or just avoid it?

 

[bripat9643]

I know I am not a Marxist, because unlike you, I know what a Marxist is. Having ideas that owe something, somehow, to Marx does not make one a Marxist. Believing in the central Marxist program (capitalism leading to socialism leading to the withering of the state and a classless, anarchistic utopia) makes one a Marxist.

I don't believe in that program, therefore I am not a Marxist. I don't say that what I do believe in isn't just as far to the left as Marx was, or nearly so -- and in a few ways more so. I merely say that I am not a Marxist, as a matter of technical accuracy, and that is the truth.

So you don't buy one particular premise of Marxism but you swallow the other 95%? That may make a difference to you, but it doesn't make a difference to anyone who opposes Marxism. 95% of what you believe is still dangerous horseshit.

LOL well, I don't equate being extreme with being wrong, either. I just equate believing what YOU believe with being wrong.

Likewise. Not only is what you believe wrong, it's also dangerous and downright stupid. It's been proven wrong many many times.

All right, maybe you realize you're a wacko. There are a fair number of right-wing whack jobs on this forum who don't, just the same.

According to your own definition of a "wack job," you qualify. On the other hand, I don't equate extreme views with "wackiness." I equate really stupid irrational views with being a wacko. That includes yours.