Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » what cons and libs agree on (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: what cons and libs agree on
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what the title says. I think it would be more productive if we avoided current events, per se, and focused more on principles. Like, for example, states' rights versus federal rights, a topic on which I suspect many cons will find themselves revealed as surprisingly liberal, while many libs will be shown to be surprisingly conservative.

But whatever. I'll stay out of it since I'm a bumptious bastard.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I used to think agreement might be reached that we should implement policies that work, rather than policies that conform with ideology. I've been disabused of that notion.

Edit: Not that we could agree on what works, but that we should implement policies that work regardless of ideological bent of the policy.

[ November 21, 2009, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm having a hard time coming up with anything. It's quite sad really.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's because you;re not thinking deeply enough.

Try it. I know you can do it. We've seen it happen, which is why you haven't earned the virtually universal contempt that G2 has.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
what cons and libs agree on
That absolute monarchy is bad.

That human sacrifice isn't needed to keep the sun returning every morning.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See? Bumptious bastard. I forgot I;d said I'd stay out.

I will. I just haven't had enough coffee yet.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me and you
Is if the Liberals love their children too

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stevarooni
Member
Member # 6053

 - posted      Profile for Stevarooni   Email Stevarooni   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
  • That too much government is bad.
  • That not enough government is bad.
  • That bad things are bad.
  • That not-bad things aren't necessarily bad, but they might be.
  • That voting for a 3rd party is throwing away your vote. [Big Grin]

Posts: 536 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That there is some balance of a government run and a privately run country that is good for everyone. ( where that balance IS is the argument I think )

Corruption is bad for everyone.

G2 goes overboard sometimes.
Kenmeer's posts are incomprehensible sometimes.
Aris REALLY REALLY doesn't like conservatives in general.
Cherry would marry Sarah Palin if he could.

( all in jest [Smile] )

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL @ Stevarooni's post.


"Cherry would marry Sarah Palin if he could."

His wife would be pissed, I think; "I can see Japan from my house [Smile] "

[ November 21, 2009, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
I'm having a hard time coming up with anything. It's quite sad really.

Cherry! Come on, friend.

I can say,

  • we believe that law is meant to create an equality between us
  • we believe that the law should punish crime but never restrain conscience
  • I think we all agree that the civil govt should not endorse any religious group
  • we believe that economic policy should create a suspense in which those who labor may be remunerated


[ November 21, 2009, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Kuato ]

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some days ago I did make a certain grid, here (you can click the pic for a larger view), that I hoped would be seen by both right-wingers and left-wingers as making *some* worthy points, even if I very much doubt many/any will agree on all its points.

Feel free to comment on it.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suspect that a lot of us agree on general principals, which is why we continue to hang around one another. Where we contend is over application and what "counts" as furthering a given principal.

For example, I'm prochoice because for me, it's a small government issue. Another person might be prolife because he or she believes a fetus is a person who, particularly as it is unable to "speak" for itself, deserves the full protection of the law. And I would expect that both of us would consider ourselves to be champions of individual rights--yet on this issue we'd reach completely different conclusions about the role of the law/government in the case of fetuses. And many others who superficially agree with each of us might do so for reasons we would respectively consider anathema, yet those people would be considered on the same "side" as each of us.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris-
I particularly like the "bait" and "catch" part. It's very interesting, and accurate I think, which words you used.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stevarooni:
  • That voting for a 3rd party is throwing away your vote. [Big Grin]

OBJECTION!
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There were a lot of good points made, but there are quite a few that are still contentious. Not the one about me liking Sarah though. I know she's no genius, but I like that she knows her limitations. She doesn't think she's smart enough to run every American's life for them, and that's a good thing.

I'll just pick out a few that might be most debatable and meaning no disrespect at all because I know it's an effort to find things we have in common, an effort I admit to failing at, but here goes:


From the only fire brand here that could match the Sarah in my book for beauty as well as boldness:

> we believe that law is meant to create an equality between us

That might be nice, but with reverse discrimination, quotas, set asides, etc. it often seems to some people like the effort to achieve equality in the long broad run means some are treated a lot less equally than others, such as in the Fire Department case where nobody was promoted because only white guys and one Hispanic made the cut.


> we believe that the law should punish crime but never restrain conscience

There seem to be a lot of people who don't believe the law should punish crime at all. Punishment is not the objective. Rehabilitation is what we are striving for. Get them back out there in society so they can try, try again. To be reproductive citizens hopefully, and not try, try again to not get caught this time.

> I think we all agree that the civil govt should not endorse any religious group

Most of us here might, but across America? There's no way. American Muslims when asked their opinion on this often indicate exactly what is demanded by Islam, namely that church and state should should share a foundation. Christians aren't far behind them either in attitude, and are ahead in power.

> we believe that economic policy should create a suspense in which those who labor may be remunerated

That's a little tricky. I'm not sure I understand it completely. People should get paid of course. But there can be a lot of debate about how much ranging from at least a living wage to whatever the market will bear.

> From Aris:

> That absolute monarchy is bad.

I wish I could believe that. But with the trend toward gun confiscation and giving our government more and more power, I'm not so confident anymore. I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt on it though, with just a hint of the jitters.

Here are some that I actually talked myself out of:

We all believe:

- that honest elections are best

- people should be able to live their lives with as little governmental interference as possible

- our borders should be secure

- corruption must be exposed, punished, and prevented

- people should be treated equally under the law (I was thinking along the same lines as Kuato but talked myself out of it)

- tangential to the last one, racism is bad

- the Constitution is sacrosanct


Okay, maybe a couple we can agree on, or at least I haven't found a way around them yet:

- education is vitally important

- our children are important above all else

Unfortunately, now that I think about it, even those are debatable for some people.

Who? People who would rather get drunk or stoned or use crack cocaine until they die may not value education much and there are the zero growth folks who apparently don't much value breeders.


Just when you think there's something everyone could agree on... http://www.vhemt.org/ [Eek!]

Okay, to be fair it would be easier if there were some way to limit ourselves to "normal" libs and cons. Take out the loons and I'm sure we share some common ground somewhere.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I like that she knows her limitations.
We're talking about someone who thinks she deserves to be President. Do you think you deserve to be President?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"it often seems to some people like the effort to achieve equality in the long broad run means some are treated a lot less equally than others"
Trying to create equality without actively battling inequality, is like a doctor wanting his patients healthy but without ever prescribing medicine for their diseases.

That's why equality demands solidarity.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> TomDavidson

> I like that she knows her limitations.

---------------------------------------

> We're talking about someone who thinks she deserves to be President. Do you think you deserve to be President?

Her new campaign slogan: "Better than W!"

She deserves to be President if enough people vote for her. I already voted for her (I sure wasn't voting for McCain!). I think she'd do a fantastic job. America would be a better place under her leadership. As I always say, "We don't need brilliance. We need common sense." And integrity is always nice too.

When you take the Obama off prompter, she stacks up quite well. What we see with Sarah is the role the media plays in shaping our perceptions. They edit out anything bad about the politicians they like. It's a miracle when anything slips through the cracks with Obama and each time it did it was a bombshell. With Palin, everything is edited in the worst possible light, sometimes literally such as with Newsweek highlighting photos just to show the faults of her face.

The proof of the pudding is with Obama and his fancy pants financial wizard Geithner. That's the prime "smartest guys in the room" example of what's wrong with this picture. Instead of a bunch of supposedly brilliant tax cheats, we would be better served with a few honest accountants.

---------------------------------------------

Trying not to get off topic, maybe something we can all agree on:

"The media is full of bias and cannot be trusted."

Obviously, that can cut both ways which is why we might agree on it.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"With Palin, everything is edited in the worst possible light,"
I saw the Biden-Palin debate in full, unedited. Palin doesn't have to be edited to be seen as the the worst possible politician ever.

She kept *winking* for chrissakes. Was she trying to get people to vote to her, or sleep with her?

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The winking could have been because of the lights, or perhaps a nervous twitch because of speaking in front of so many people. I don't know, but I'm not holding that against her, especially if she really was flirting with me.

There seem to only be two camps on Palin: those who hate her guts with every fiber of their being and those who think she's basically good people, someone who can be trusted because she isn't completely corrupted yet by the system. I guess people just don't get why a lot of us like Sarah Palin. It's true she isn't competent enough to know how to run every detail of our lives and tell us all what we need to do, to feel, to think. But it's also true that neither is Obama and the difference is that she knows it and he doesn't.

This may be getting off topic a bit though. If this is about the things that libs and cons can agree on, Sarah Palin isn't it. [Smile]

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"and those who think she's basically good people"

I think you can think she is a basically good person and still a complete moron. We have, on the one hand Obama, who is either ignorantly selling the country away to the banks and investment firms, or is smart enough to know it; then we have Palin, who just wouldn't know what was going on, and the banks would have much less trouble getting her to do what they want.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The banks ALREADY own the nation, TommySam. It's a fact. Obama is just buying liquidity with governmental authority.

We're a nation of credit addicts, and Obama cut a deal with the Columbian credit cartels, so to speak, to prevent massive withdrawal casualties and let us experience a gentler jones.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
"and those who think she's basically good people"

I think you can think she is a basically good person and still a complete moron. We have, on the one hand Obama, who is either ignorantly selling the country away to the banks and investment firms, or is smart enough to know it; then we have Palin, who just wouldn't know what was going on, and the banks would have much less trouble getting her to do what they want.

Sarah Palin didn't seem to have any problems negotiating with the "Big Oil" companies.

quote:
Once in office, Palin took an aggressive stance toward the oil companies. Her nickname from high-school basketball, "Sarah Barracuda," was resurrected in the press. Early in her term, she shocked oil lobbyists when she was so bold as to not show up when Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson came to Juneau to meet with her. Palin, after scrapping Murkowski's deal, would not give Big Oil the terms they wanted,...

Palin also raised taxes on oil companies after Murkowski's previous tax regime produced falling revenues in 2007, despite skyrocketing oil prices. Alaska now has some of the highest resource taxes in the world. Alaska's oil tax revenues are expected to be about $10 billion in 2008, twice those of previous year.

Link

I'd say your statement is based more on your preconceived notions than any objective fact.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
whitefire
Member
Member # 6505

 - posted      Profile for whitefire   Email whitefire       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What about these (From Jwatts, Obama Lied, People Died thread):

quote:
Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN


I wasn't so sure about the drugs, subsidies, and PAYGO so I removed them.
PAYGO has its problems but there seems to be some promise there, too.

[ November 23, 2009, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: whitefire ]

Posts: 97 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
whitefire
Member
Member # 6505

 - posted      Profile for whitefire   Email whitefire       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about:

The maximum amount of individual freedom possible (I think) is a conservative and liberal value.

Both sides are too often willing to give up individual freedom for other things they think are important.

I would always rather too little government than too much. That's one of the reasons I tend to be more conservative is I think many liberals tend to be more willing to give up individual freedoms more freely (no pun intended).

Posts: 97 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd say libs are more willing to trust a democratic government to respect their freedoms than its predecessors, and anarchy is simply not an option.

The growth of government is largely self-induced; both sides of the aisle increase some aspect of it most of the time, and the general trend is to biggerness.

But then, we have far more people living in the USA than in the past. Perhaps there is some correlation.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What Cons and Libs agree on:

* That the grand charade of "Democracy" is a good thing.

* That voting actually means something substantive and positive.

* That the two party system is a very real and substantial dichotomy, rather than two rival factions of what is essentially the same entity - a power hungry, intrusive, neo-fascist nanny state Government.

* That the Government's intrusion into our lives is a good thing.

Cons and Libs are in de facto agreement on many, many different things. That's because most of you don't even realize that the only real difference between cons and libs is a belief in the current status quo system you willingly and eagerly participate in.

Cons and Libs are merely two sides of the same dialectical trap.

Thesis + Anti-Thesis = Synthesis

Welcome to our Brave New World Order, sheeple! [Exploding]

Cons and Libs are merely the thesis and anti-thesis, and through conflict, will always emerge the synthesis. This is how our society has been deliberately socially engineered.

And this synthesis that is the desired outcome that can only come about by playing both sides for fools and getting each side to implement their part of it.

Just in the last decade, the Cons have played up their part in implementing communitarian goals for the military and for implementing various functions of a very real police State (all in the name of the "War on Terror.") Never fear, it is now the libs turn to implement the communitarian goals for population control via "health care."

It is a Hegelian mind manipulation founded on the idea of getting the masses to believe they have 'Freedom of Choice' when the reality is we are really only presented with two choices, both of which make no real difference in the end result of the big picture.

Sounds crazy, eh? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, or that dude with his tinfoil hat hiding from the black helicopters....

You want the truth?

Take a step back and look at the observable facts of our reality.

Are Libs and Cons REALLY that different when they gain the seat of power in our "DEMOCRATICALLY" Elected government?

Just look at the similarities of the Government's actions between Bush and Obama.

War, bailouts for financial elites, out of control debt spending, continued erosion of personal privacy and property rights.

These things have been going on for over a century, REGARDLESS of whether the cons or the libs have had control of the Government.

The real issue is really about two basic principles: Individual freedom vs. Communitarian ideology.

For the most part, Cons and Libs are both Communitarian in their political philosophy.

Most of you will read what I wrote, and dismiss it offhand as just another delusional rant by yours truly.

If any of you actually care to understand where I'm coming from, I invite you to read up on the real political debate in our world is based on today:

The Anti-Communitarian League

quote:
Communitarianism is the emerging global political system. It is the founding philosophy for world government. It's the legal authority for rebuilding a sustainable world. Everyone must serve in a communitarian system. The 2010 Census Map is the new draft for an all Volunteer America.

Communitarianism is the Rule of Law in all communist countries (with China and Singapore leading the way) and has the most open opposition from the formerly communist nations. While the ACL is a US Constitutional based opposition research institute, our work necessarily includes how the new communitarian system is being implemented around the world.



[ November 23, 2009, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreeing with Daruma with a Matrix reference (never gets old in my book):

Cons and libs both agree on swallowing the Blue Pill.

Daruma and some libertarians insist on the harder reality of the Red Pill.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Sarah Palin didn't seem to have any problems negotiating with the "Big Oil" companies."

I don't really know how we got on to "Big Oil" since I mentioned banks, but I was responding to cherry who said it seems people either hate Palin and think she is evil, or think she is a combination of Santa Jesus. In any case, my point was that you can think she is an idiot, but still also think she is a good person.


"It is a Hegelian mind manipulation founded on the idea of getting the masses to believe they have 'Freedom of Choice' when the reality is we are really only presented with two choices, both of which make no real difference in the end result of the big picture."

Yes, dialectical opposition! When 'liberal' got redefined to mean socialist, both American parties became 'statist' parties. I wonder if freedom and slavery are really opposites when put into practice in an imperfect world, though?

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder if freedom and slavery are really opposites when put into practice in an imperfect world, though?

Of course they are.

The real issue is to recognize the ways our current status quo seeks to enslave us...and the ways in which they fool us into happily embracing that slavery by conditioning us to think that we are "free" in our enslavement.

This is the very essence of "DEMOCRACY."


[LOL]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't really know how we got on to "Big Oil" since I mentioned banks, but I was responding to cherry who said it seems people either hate Palin and think she is evil, or think she is a combination of Santa Jesus. In any case, my point was that you can think she is an idiot, but still also think she is a good person.

Dude, Sarah Palin is simply the CON-Dialectic empty vessel.

Her supporters imbue her with all sorts of HOPE for CHANGE, her detractors with all the characteristics of the distilled essence of all that is wrong with the CON-dialectical arguments.

Just is Obama is the Lib-Dialectical empty vessel.

The only substance either political figure of either side really represents is the Communitarian 3rd way.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
- that honest elections are best

- people should be able to live their lives with as little governmental interference as possible

- our borders should be secure

- corruption must be exposed, punished, and prevented

- people should be treated equally under the law (I was thinking along the same lines as Kuato but talked myself out of it)

- tangential to the last one, racism is bad

- the Constitution is sacrosanct

My only nuance on this is that I don't hold government external interference to a different standard than non-governmental external interference (such as that performed by corporations or other coercive organizations such as the mafia, drug gangs, the klu klux klan, etc.)
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I kind of hate to argue with myself, at least publicly without a turned off cell phone to my ear to mask the insanity, but that list there was actually my list of things it might seem like there could be agreement on, but only at first glance.

Sure there are some liberals and conservatives who might agree, but there seem to be plenty enough that don't:

Honest elections are best - scratch that Acorn

Government needs to interfere with every aspect of our lives for our own good: vehicles we drive, foods we eat, temperatures we set our thermostats at.

Open borders are happy borders.

Corruption isn't a problem if it's our sides doing it. Probably enough on both side live this way even if they won't come out and say it.

The best way to treat people equally under the law is to treat them unequally under the law.

Building on that, racism is good as long as it's against the right people, such as discriminating against whites in hiring and Asians in higher education. The only way to fight racism is with racism.

The Constitution is a living, breathing document, and it says whatever I read into it and means what is convenient for it to mean to push my agenda of the moment.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is why we need that mudfight. It will be just what the doctor ordered.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The only way to fight racism is with racism.
No, it's just that you tend to oppose all the other ways of fighting it too.

I mean I'd be all in favor of *income*-based affirmative action... but guess what? Conservatives are opposed to that too.

Universal healthcare? Opposed to it. Funding quality public education? Opposed to it.

So basically whichever racial group is the most poor, unhealthy or undereducated you effectively desire to remain the most poor, and most unhealthy, and most undereducated.

Conservatives's preferred way of battling racism is to stick their fingers in their ears and hum real loudly.

Please offer us your own way of battling racism, cherry -- but since the Republican Party is only 3% black, then you aren't really convincing many minorities of the effectiveness of your proposed plan.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but since the Republican Party is only 3% black
Ah, less than that, it seems.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
I kind of hate to argue with myself, at least publicly without a turned off cell phone to my ear to mask the insanity, but that list there was actually my list of things it might seem like there could be agreement on, but only at first glance.

Sure there are some liberals and conservatives who might agree, but there seem to be plenty enough that don't:

Honest elections are best - scratch that Diebald

Government needs to interfere with every aspect of our lives for our own good: vehicles we drive, foods we eat, the people we can marry, the substances we can put in our bodies.

Open borders are happy borders. (No edit necessary, Hello "Guest Workers")

Corruption isn't a problem if it's our sides doing it. Probably enough on both side live this way even if they won't come out and say it.

The best way to treat people equally under the law is to treat them unequally under the law. (No edit necessary again.Oh to be in banker lockdown)

Building on that, racism is good as long as it's against the right people, such as discriminating against whites in hiring and Asians in higher education. The only way to fight racism is with racism. (I agree, discrimination is bad whether you're applying for college or applying for an apartment. The latter is against the law, the former is the law)

The Constitution is a living, breathing document, and it says whatever I read into it and means what is convenient for it to mean to push my agenda of the moment. (Like illegal search and seizure, warentless searches and cruel and unusual punishment, or does only the 2nd amendment count?)

Libs and cons start with the idea of liberty but find one thing and then another they feel the government should do, regulate or prevent and we have the system we have now.

Republicans, you can have small government and low taxes or you can have The Department of Homeland Security, The War on Terror, the DEA, The War on Drugs and a massive military capable of protecting American interests at any time in any place. All those things cost money, A LOT of money. That means taxes, a lot of taxes.

Democrats you can be a Progressive alternative to the Republicans or you can have The Department of Homeland Security, The War on Terror, the DEA, The War on Drugs and a massive military capable of protecting American interests at any time in any place. Protecting personal liberties extends to the 2nd amendment too.

Both parties perpetuate the system by playing on a raft of stereotypes of the otherside and putting forward just enough of the social engineering of the Christian right or the secular humanists to give the appearance of a kind of moral stance, but not enough for the mainstream to worry about it.

The mainstream of both parties are different sides of the same coin.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
whitefire
Member
Member # 6505

 - posted      Profile for whitefire   Email whitefire       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Slavery - at least in Druma's way is framing i (please correct me if I'm wrong)t- in America and many places in the world requires freedom. No one is pointing a gun at us.
The freedom to bind ourselves for something we believe in or think is a good idea.
KL said that libs trust their freedoms to a democratic government more easily than others.
I don't, or at least not as much.
I trust my freedoms to my family and my friends. For example, I've made the choice to provide healthcare for my family, my wife is a writer without much of an income, so I subsidize her career, if a friend needs money I give what I can.
But we have chosen to bind our small communities together in order to protect those freedoms. At least I thought that was the goal.
Both "libs and conservs," in respect to that, I think, have abandoned that course for another, choosing to bind the people to do for all what we choose to do for those we care about. And, for the most part, we have gone along with it because it seems to make sense to extend those things we give to our families and communities to everyone.
That's our enslavement, whatever the politicians reasons or goals.

Posts: 97 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 6328

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic   Email natural_mystic       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
But with the trend toward gun confiscation

What are the data points in this trend so far?
Posts: 9 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1