This is us, and it's everybody else too...

[Si modo]

And yet ironically, you could be the poster girl for what the article is all about.

If that were so, I would have bought the 'article' hook, line, and sinker. But I didn't. Let that tidbit of deductive reasoning ricochet around your skull for a bit and let's see if it actually collides with anything other than bone.

The fact that you so passionately argue against a perfectly normal reaction is what says volumes. ....

Moron still can't read. Once again (after two times typing it before): I react to the lack of logic.

Dishonest idiot.

Now, try to apply some logic to what you just quoted. Just give it a try. It won't hurt you, I promise.

.... You're also a hypocrite standing at the head of that class. Who is using ad hominem insults now?

Dear, I hate to tell you, but your comment about poster girls was an ad hominem, you idiotic hypocrite. But, yup. I am using them, too. When adults communicate with infants and toddlers, they often talk like infants and toddlers. It is a communication tool. When dealing with those who lack logic, who use the ever popular and no less ineffective ad hominem, and when presented with their lack of logic, resort to even more - yeah, standing on the high ground to communicate with the low lifes just doesn't work sometimes. Effective communication tools laced with logic - I'm trying.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think survival instincts kick in when beliefs are challenged too. Since beliefs are held by the individual, an attack on that is going to be met with the survival instinct. Compromise in issues is almost a necessity. Compromising a principle is not for me. So, when it is suggested the government wants to take from me to benefit someone else (many taxes), I have a problem. That government wants to tell religion what is a marriage, problem.

Exactly. But I do think the original article was written because of the timely problem of neither "side" in political issues being willing to give an inch.

 

[saveliberty]

Well, if the highlighted part of my post was your major point,I agree with you. I think that means I changed my mind at least a little.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I find it good advice to not hold strong opinions about things you don't understand or are not certain of.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think survival instincts kick in when beliefs are challenged too. Since beliefs are held by the individual, an attack on that is going to be met with the survival instinct. Compromise in issues is almost a necessity. Compromising a principle is not for me. So, when it is suggested the government wants to take from me to benefit someone else (many taxes), I have a problem. That government wants to tell religion what is a marriage, problem.

Exactly. But I do think the original article was written because of the timely problem of neither "side" in political issues being willing to give an inch.

I agree that was the thesis of the article. But do you think that's it, or is it unwillingness to just roll over and play dead when you honestly believe the other side is wrong? Or is it unwillingness to relinquish power for fear of antagonizing some constituency or group or person that would be unwise to offend?

I honestly think the GOP lost power when it began compromising certain ideals or attitudes and when it became essentially indistinguishable from the other party on those issues the more conservative electorate thought important. It wasn't because nobody would back down on anything.

In the face of increasing public disapproval and available evidence, the Democrats and President Obama almost certainly don't believe their position is defensible on many of the hot button issues. But they know admitting error would throw power to the opposition and that could thwart their different agenda.

In politics I think it is sometimes not so much stubborness of belief in one's position, but fear of what could be lost if they can't defend it.

 

[MaggieMae]

If that were so, I would have bought the 'article' hook, line, and sinker. But I didn't. Let that tidbit of deductive reasoning ricochet around your skull for a bit and let's see if it actually collides with anything other than bone.

The fact that you so passionately argue against a perfectly normal reaction is what says volumes. ....

Moron still can't read. Once again (after two times typing it before): I react to the lack of logic.

Dishonest idiot.

Now, try to apply some logic to what you just quoted. Just give it a try. It won't hurt you, I promise.

.... You're also a hypocrite standing at the head of that class. Who is using ad hominem insults now?

Dear, I hate to tell you, but your comment about poster girls was an ad hominem, you idiotic hypocrite. But, yup. I am using them, too. When adults communicate with infants and toddlers, they often talk like infants and toddlers. It is a communication tool. When dealing with those who lack logic, who use the ever popular and no less ineffective ad hominem, and when presented with their lack of logic, resort to even more - yeah, standing on the high ground to communicate with the low lifes just doesn't work sometimes. Effective communication tools laced with logic - I'm trying.

Ad hominem "debate" is what you're all about. You're a very angry person, and I can think of only one reason why people are as intentionally offensive as you are. (And I'm not talking about JUST in this thread.) Maybe you should try sleeping it off.

 

[MaggieMae]

I find it good advice to not hold strong opinions about things you don't understand or are not certain of.

That's true too.

 

[Si modo]

The fact that you so passionately argue against a perfectly normal reaction is what says volumes. ....

Moron still can't read. Once again (after two times typing it before): I react to the lack of logic.

Dishonest idiot.

Now, try to apply some logic to what you just quoted. Just give it a try. It won't hurt you, I promise.

.... You're also a hypocrite standing at the head of that class. Who is using ad hominem insults now?

Dear, I hate to tell you, but your comment about poster girls was an ad hominem, you idiotic hypocrite. But, yup. I am using them, too. When adults communicate with infants and toddlers, they often talk like infants and toddlers. It is a communication tool. When dealing with those who lack logic, who use the ever popular and no less ineffective ad hominem, and when presented with their lack of logic, resort to even more - yeah, standing on the high ground to communicate with the low lifes just doesn't work sometimes. Effective communication tools laced with logic - I'm trying.

Ad hominem "debate" is what you're all about. You're a very angry person, and I can think of only one reason why people are as intentionally offensive as you are. (And I'm not talking about JUST in this thread.) Maybe you should try sleeping it off.

Oh the irony. You reject logic and attack those who dare present it to you.

You are hopeless.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think survival instincts kick in when beliefs are challenged too. Since beliefs are held by the individual, an attack on that is going to be met with the survival instinct. Compromise in issues is almost a necessity. Compromising a principle is not for me. So, when it is suggested the government wants to take from me to benefit someone else (many taxes), I have a problem. That government wants to tell religion what is a marriage, problem.

Exactly. But I do think the original article was written because of the timely problem of neither "side" in political issues being willing to give an inch.

I agree that was the thesis of the article. But do you think that's it, or is it unwillingness to just roll over and play dead when you honestly believe the other side is wrong? Or is it unwillingness to relinquish power for fear of antagonizing some constituency or group or person that would be unwise to offend?

I honestly think the GOP lost power when it began compromising certain ideals or attitudes and when it became essentially indistinguishable from the other party on those issues the more conservative electorate thought important. It wasn't because nobody would back down on anything.

In the face of increasing public disapproval and available evidence, the Democrats and President Obama almost certainly don't believe their position is defensible on many of the hot button issues. But they know admitting error would throw power to the opposition and that could thwart their different agenda.

In politics I think it is sometimes not so much stubborness of belief in one's position, but fear of what could be lost if they can't defend it.

Some very good points here, but I think the article references the individual rather than an organization doesn't it?

But I agree wholeheartedly that in politics admiting a mistake or modifying your position in reaction to new evidence carries the risk of giving your opposition a "flip-flop" club they'll try to beat you over the head with. While I consider it a mark of intelligence and wisdom (in many instances), opponents will almost certainly try to paint it into "a lack of conviction" or "wishy-washy."

I think that certainly contributes to a reluctance to change positions.

 

[saveliberty]

Hhm...some agreement from often opposing opinionated folks. It is a good day in forumland.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think survival instincts kick in when beliefs are challenged too. Since beliefs are held by the individual, an attack on that is going to be met with the survival instinct. Compromise in issues is almost a necessity. Compromising a principle is not for me. So, when it is suggested the government wants to take from me to benefit someone else (many taxes), I have a problem. That government wants to tell religion what is a marriage, problem.

Exactly. But I do think the original article was written because of the timely problem of neither "side" in political issues being willing to give an inch.

I agree that was the thesis of the article. But do you think that's it, or is it unwillingness to just roll over and play dead when you honestly believe the other side is wrong? Or is it unwillingness to relinquish power for fear of antagonizing some constituency or group or person that would be unwise to offend?

I honestly think the GOP lost power when it began compromising certain ideals or attitudes and when it became essentially indistinguishable from the other party on those issues the more conservative electorate thought important. It wasn't because nobody would back down on anything.

In the face of increasing public disapproval and available evidence, the Democrats and President Obama almost certainly don't believe their position is defensible on many of the hot button issues. But they know admitting error would throw power to the opposition and that could thwart their different agenda.

In politics I think it is sometimes not so much stubborness of belief in one's position, but fear of what could be lost if they can't defend it.

I think you're right about all of the above. When the Bush Administration held a majority in Washington, it upset me no end that the House and Senate leadership would not "allow" minority Democrats to offer amendments, or include any of their proposed bills on the respective agendas. But I became even MORE upset when Pelosi and Reid did the same damned thing to Republicans! I'm really sick and tired of the games they play. We have some very serious issues that both parties need to intelligently and rationally confer with each other on rather than rushing to the nearest camera for their daily face time to granddstand.

Regarding the spending, the Obama people need to back off trying to put the cart before the horse and expecting it will move forward without falling in the mud. On the other hand, Republicans have got to realize that SOME domestic problems need to be addressed and it can't ALL be done by tax cuts. I think they should stop everything they're doing and work out some sort of general compromise agreement between them which itemizes priorities on a single page, how much we can afford to spend PER YEAR on them, and start checking them off. Maybe if the leadership all put their signatures to it, it would end this ridiculous gridlock and silly politics. Washington does nothing but spin its wheels, as usual and send us the bill.

 

[MaggieMae]

Exactly. But I do think the original article was written because of the timely problem of neither "side" in political issues being willing to give an inch.

I agree that was the thesis of the article. But do you think that's it, or is it unwillingness to just roll over and play dead when you honestly believe the other side is wrong? Or is it unwillingness to relinquish power for fear of antagonizing some constituency or group or person that would be unwise to offend?

I honestly think the GOP lost power when it began compromising certain ideals or attitudes and when it became essentially indistinguishable from the other party on those issues the more conservative electorate thought important. It wasn't because nobody would back down on anything.

In the face of increasing public disapproval and available evidence, the Democrats and President Obama almost certainly don't believe their position is defensible on many of the hot button issues. But they know admitting error would throw power to the opposition and that could thwart their different agenda.

In politics I think it is sometimes not so much stubborness of belief in one's position, but fear of what could be lost if they can't defend it.

Some very good points here, but I think the article references the individual rather than an organization doesn't it?

But I agree wholeheartedly that in politics admiting a mistake or modifying your position in reaction to new evidence carries the risk of giving your opposition a "flip-flop" club they'll try to beat you over the head with. While I consider it a mark of intelligence and wisdom (in many instances), opponents will almost certainly try to paint it into "a lack of conviction" or "wishy-washy."

I think that certainly contributes to a reluctance to change positions.

Indeed, the flip-flop syndrome can be suicide in this day and age of instant reporting from the blogosphere, which often gets distorted before all the facts are in. By then, the reason therefor is usually too late.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think survival instincts kick in when beliefs are challenged too. Since beliefs are held by the individual, an attack on that is going to be met with the survival instinct. Compromise in issues is almost a necessity. Compromising a principle is not for me. So, when it is suggested the government wants to take from me to benefit someone else (many taxes), I have a problem. That government wants to tell religion what is a marriage, problem.

Exactly. But I do think the original article was written because of the timely problem of neither "side" in political issues being willing to give an inch.

I agree that was the thesis of the article. But do you think that's it, or is it unwillingness to just roll over and play dead when you honestly believe the other side is wrong? Or is it unwillingness to relinquish power for fear of antagonizing some constituency or group or person that would be unwise to offend?

I honestly think the GOP lost power when it began compromising certain ideals or attitudes and when it became essentially indistinguishable from the other party on those issues the more conservative electorate thought important. It wasn't because nobody would back down on anything.

In the face of increasing public disapproval and available evidence, the Democrats and President Obama almost certainly don't believe their position is defensible on many of the hot button issues. But they know admitting error would throw power to the opposition and that could thwart their different agenda.

In politics I think it is sometimes not so much stubborness of belief in one's position, but fear of what could be lost if they can't defend it.

Another really good point in here is the "strongly held belief" part. I think we have to accept the idea that convictions are NOT easy to overturn - I would suggest that "convictions" for some people include some absolutely absurd (imho) positions and there has to be a difference between respecting another's convictions and allowing those convictions to dictate public policy. So when a majority considers MY convictions absurd - I am frustrated and probably react poorly.

 

[Foxfyre]

Indeed, the flip-flop syndrome can be suicide in this day and age of instant reporting from the blogosphere, which often gets distorted before all the facts are in. By then, the reason therefor is usually too late.

The radical extreme left would almost certainly go ballistic, but what would the public reaction be if President Obama went on television tonight with this statement:

"My Fellow Americans: After spending a great deal of time in meditation, reflection, and soul searching, I have come to realize that I have been wrong. I have listened to the wrong advisors and ignored wisdom and counsel from true experts. America is the best country in the world and I will no longer apologize for who we are even as I pledge to help us make us better. The government is too big, too expensive, and we have too many issues on the table that are not in the long range interests of the people. I am as committed to health care reform and environmental concerns as ever but I now believe the current legislation is wrong for America. I am asking my administration and Congress to stop now, and start over. And let's get it right so that future generations will benefit and not suffer from our decisions today. I am as committed as ever to peaceful solutions to all problems, but the USA will not be compromising on anything that will weaken our ability to defend ourselves no matter what happens. I am as committed as ever to fiscal responsibility and I see now that what we're doing is not working. We are rolling back all uncommitted and unspent portions of the stimulus bill and will be looking for ways to cut expenses at all levels of government while providing encouragement to recovery in the private sector. I have been wrong. I will now be trying my very best to get it right."

Another really good point in here is the "strongly held belief" part. I think we have to accept the idea that convictions are NOT easy to overturn - I would suggest that "convictions" for some people include some absolutely absurd (imho) positions and there has to be a difference between respecting another's convictions and allowing those convictions to dictate public policy. So when a majority considers MY convictions absurd - I am frustrated and probably react poorly.

But would you be wrong to be frustrated and react to violation of your deeply held conviction? As Tevia said in "Fiddler on the Roof": "If I bend that far, I will break." How far can we bend without losing everything we value?

 

[nodoginnafight]

"My Fellow Americans: After spending a great deal of time in meditation, reflection, and soul searching, I have come to realize that I have been wrong. I have listened to the wrong advisors and ignored wisdom and counsel from true experts. America is the best country in the world and I will no longer apologize for who we are even as I pledge to help us make us better. The government is too big, too expensive, and we have too many issues on the table that are not in the long range interests of the people. I am as committed to health care reform and environmental concerns as ever but I now believe the current legislation is wrong for America. I am asking my administration and Congress to stop now, and start over. And let's get it right so that future generations will benefit and not suffer from our decisions today. I am as committed as ever to peaceful solutions to all problems, but the USA will not be compromising on anything that will weaken our ability to defend ourselves no matter what happens. I am as committed as ever to fiscal responsibility and I see now that what we're doing is not working. We are rolling back all uncommitted and unspent portions of the stimulus bill and will be looking for ways to cut expenses at all levels of government while providing encouragement to recovery in the private sector. I have been wrong. I will now be trying my very best to get it right."

There are parts of that little speech I could appreciate, but there are far too many inaccuracies and false assumptions for it to be believable. You might as well ask for him to say "I've decided to become a NeoCon Republican, I was born in Kenya, and I would like to appoint Dick Cheney to replace me as president." I consider many elements of your proposed speech to be every bit as absurd.

But would you be wrong to be frustrated and react to violation of your deeply held conviction? As Tevia said in "Fiddler on the Roof": "If I bend that far, I will break." How far can we bend without losing everything we value?

America does not guarantee you the right to hold onto everything you value. America gives you the right to live in a country where the majority decides the direction. If the majority holds different values, then your (or my) values may not be reflected. Then your recourse is not violence - it is to do the work that is needed to convince a majority that your values SHOULD be the ones reflected in our nation. The fact that someone finds themself in an ideological minority is not a failure of representative democracy or our system, it is a failure of that ideology and it's proponents to win approval.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

America does not guarantee you the right to hold onto everything you value. America gives you the right to live in a country where the majority decides the direction. If the majority holds different values, then your (or my) values may not be reflected. Then your recourse is not violence - it is to do the work that is needed to convince a majority that your values SHOULD be the ones reflected in our nation. The fact that someone finds themself in an ideological minority is not a failure of representative democracy or our system, it is a failure of that ideology and it's proponents to win approval.

Well if only that were true.
The majority are being plagued by a tyranny of progressive policies that only a small percentage support.

 

[nodoginnafight]

America does not guarantee you the right to hold onto everything you value. America gives you the right to live in a country where the majority decides the direction. If the majority holds different values, then your (or my) values may not be reflected. Then your recourse is not violence - it is to do the work that is needed to convince a majority that your values SHOULD be the ones reflected in our nation. The fact that someone finds themself in an ideological minority is not a failure of representative democracy or our system, it is a failure of that ideology and it's proponents to win approval.

Well if only that were true.
The majority are being plagued by a tyranny of progressive policies that only a small percentage support.

That's a common complaint from the ideological minority. It basically says, yeah we didn't have more votes than they did, but ....... (insert preffered rationalization here)

You have about 3 years to convince a majority of voters that this president doesn't reflect their values. I would suggest that simply pretending the statement is already true, is not an efficient use of your time. But that's just mho.

 

[saveliberty]

Power is held by the people true enough. Currently the government is bent on wrestling that power from us. Dicating a health care system, ignoring illegal immigration, increasing the differences in economic classes, cutting off public debate and many other issues.

Leadership changes don't seem to make a difference. The Constitutional framers were not without understanding that enemies domestic might result in a need for arms to be raised. Politicans need to understand pacification, retaliation, and propagandization are not the tools of the Republic.

 

[Foxfyre]

"My Fellow Americans: After spending a great deal of time in meditation, reflection, and soul searching, I have come to realize that I have been wrong. I have listened to the wrong advisors and ignored wisdom and counsel from true experts. America is the best country in the world and I will no longer apologize for who we are even as I pledge to help us make us better. The government is too big, too expensive, and we have too many issues on the table that are not in the long range interests of the people. I am as committed to health care reform and environmental concerns as ever but I now believe the current legislation is wrong for America. I am asking my administration and Congress to stop now, and start over. And let's get it right so that future generations will benefit and not suffer from our decisions today. I am as committed as ever to peaceful solutions to all problems, but the USA will not be compromising on anything that will weaken our ability to defend ourselves no matter what happens. I am as committed as ever to fiscal responsibility and I see now that what we're doing is not working. We are rolling back all uncommitted and unspent portions of the stimulus bill and will be looking for ways to cut expenses at all levels of government while providing encouragement to recovery in the private sector. I have been wrong. I will now be trying my very best to get it right."

There are parts of that little speech I could appreciate, but there are far too many inaccuracies and false assumptions for it to be believable. You might as well ask for him to say "I've decided to become a NeoCon Republican, I was born in Kenya, and I would like to appoint Dick Cheney to replace me as president." I consider many elements of your proposed speech to be every bit as absurd.

In all due respect I didn't ask for a critique of the speech. I asked what the public reaction would likely be to the speech. Based purely on your statement here, you apparently would see it as absurd. I, on the other hand, would be intensely interested to watch for evidence that there was conviction behind the words. I think there might be far more Americans who would react as I would react than those who would react as you did.

But would you be wrong to be frustrated and react to violation of your deeply held conviction? As Tevia said in "Fiddler on the Roof": "If I bend that far, I will break." How far can we bend without losing everything we value?

America does not guarantee you the right to hold onto everything you value. America gives you the right to live in a country where the majority decides the direction. If the majority holds different values, then your (or my) values may not be reflected. Then your recourse is not violence - it is to do the work that is needed to convince a majority that your values SHOULD be the ones reflected in our nation. The fact that someone finds themself in an ideological minority is not a failure of representative democracy or our system, it is a failure of that ideology and it's proponents to win approval.

Until the Constitution is changed, being American is a guarantee of certain fundamental rights that are inviolate no matter how large a majority would presume to deny me those. One of those rights is the pursuit of (my) happiness so long as the rights of others are not violated and the right to express my opinions so long as the rights of others are not violated.

Do you consider all values to be ideology? If not, then you framed your response in a context that I did not intend with my remarks. I did not refer to ideological majorities or minorities. I referred to convictions that you or I hold strongly. If it is a strongly held conviction, and you have no reason to believe it is held imprudently, what criteria would be necessary for you to agree to compromise it?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Power is held by the people true enough. Currently the government is bent on wrestling that power from us. Dicating a health care system, ignoring illegal immigration, increasing the differences in economic classes, cutting off public debate and many other issues.

Leadership changes don't seem to make a difference. The Constitutional framers were not without understanding that enemies domestic might result in a need for arms to be raised. Politicans need to understand pacification, retaliation, and propagandization are not the tools of the Republic.

I think what you are overlooking is that a majority of Americans elected this government and healthcare reform was part of their platform - people knew it and they elected them. Voters have elected "changes in direction" many times before. If they don't like the direction, then the system provides a peaceful way to change it back if they so choose.

We had very devisive elections in 1960 and in 2000 and yet the transition was peaceful and smooth (in spite of all the yelling and screaming - there was no bloodshed) We might have our differences but we respect the rule of law. That sets us apart from many other nations - and imho in a very good way.

Violence is NOT a substitute for getting the votes you need.