| Author |
Message |
    
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 558
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:11 pm: | 
|
It seems to me that a number of people on MOL are politically dogmatic. That is, they follow the party line on each and every issue, and don't seem to have any independence of thought.
Can you be thoughtfully independent? If so, how do you disagree with the party you normally would support?
In my own example, I voted for Gore. In the next election I held my nose and voted for Bush, because I thought Kerry's idea of terrorism as a criminal problem was far more dangerous for the future of this country than Bush's past performance. I did not see the need to invade Iraq, but I do see the need to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran to prevent them from having nukes.
How do you differ with those that appear to you to represent most of your political beliefs? |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5436
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:22 pm: |
|
I don't know if you can separate the concept of being a "thoughtful independent", from being a thoughtful voter.
"Democrat" and "Republican" have turned into short-hand references for world-views. Party affiliation, for better or worse, has to be an element considered by the thoughtful voter.
One thing that the "thoughtful independent", or thoughtful voter, can do is to look through propaganda, such as propaganda about "Kerry's idea of terrorism as a criminal problem". Or, the notion that all our problems will be solved by attacking Iran. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 560
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:30 pm: |
|
Nohero-
You disappoint me considering your intellect.
My decisions were based on careful evaluation and reading everything I could.
Are your comments not just a repetition of democratic talking points and the democratic screed?
How does your intellect tell you to differ with your party? Or does it? |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:35 pm: |
|
FVF,
Nice attempt, I've tried it before. It won't take long for it to digress but a nice try.
I like Bush (shocking). I agree with him on most issues. I also understand compromise is the name of the game in politics which is why I don't skewer him on things I disagree with. I can't recall one POTUS ever not having to compromise. I disagree with his budgets but realize Congress controls those purse strings. I wish he'd seal the border, but that isn't going to happen.
I guess you could say your question is thoughtful but in reality not meaningful. You can't pick and choose qualities from each candidate and make a super candidate. You have one pull of the lever so you get the good and the bad from a particular candidate. Sure I disagree with Bush on many issues but I disagree with the alternative party on almost all issues, therefore independence of thought is fun to discuss in the abstract but in practicality you have one vote to use so your overall philosophical view is easy to follow. How you could go from voting for a lefty loon like Gore to a neo-con like Bush is perplexing to me. Either you matured tremendously in 4 years (I doubt it since you are probably well north of 30) or you have no real core political philosophy. I'm not being critical but just postulizing. In the end it doesn't really matter. Clinton governed rather conservatively and Bush hasn't done us neo-cons any favors so basically it doesn't really matter. The minority party whether Repubs or Dems have become so good at the "chicken little" agenda that President's are pretty much lame ducks by the first day in office. Which is just fine by me. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5437
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:37 pm: |
|
Sorry to disappoint you.
But, I would not base a vote on talking points, such as the ones you cited.
"Differ with your party" is another way of phrasing the question, "Is party affiliation a reason to vote for a person?"
It can be, if it tells you what that person will do once in office.
Maybe the stated affiliation of the candidate, is more important than the personal affiliation of the voter. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 561
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:40 pm: |
|
Southern-
Do you agree that being politically dogmatic on every issue hurts this country?
Aren't we better served by people in both parties maintaining open minds and disagreeing with their respective parties when common sense says they should? |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 562
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Nohero-
My point is not to attack democrats, there is enough blame for both. But if we act solely on party affiliations aren't we further institutionalizing the problem? In other words there is no basis for change because they know they will automatically get your vote? |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5438
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:48 pm: |
|
I'm more concerned about a candidate espousing a party affiliation, where I am not comfortable with the stated goals of that party. Unless the candidate shows that he or she does not espouse those goals, I would not vote for that candidate.
I'm assuming we are discussing candidates for national office, and the positions of the parties on national issues. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Yes, and they do. But at some point the talking and philosophical waxing must come to an end (although you would not know it by watching hearings on CSPAN) and a vote must be cast. And I agree, if each vote could be made in a vacuum then that would help in your discussion. But politicians have long memories and the structure of Congress so rewards longevity that if you piss off an elder on a vote because you are being dogmatic then don't be surprised if your military base gets axed next go around. In a perfect scenario of course I agree with your supposition but that is never going to happen so I have long ago stopped wishing and hoping for this to happen.
I am very practical and dogmatic and here is my guiding philosophy - the Dems were the majority party for so long and treated the conservatives so poorly that my goal is simple - keep power so they can not continue to move this country down the socialist slope they were pushing us down. I disagree so solidly with the liberal programs created before I was even born that it is going to take decades to crush these institutions but we are on the way. You can call it starve the beast, I call it giving this country back to the people who actually work to make it great. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5647
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:19 pm: |
|
Oh, the glorious, independent, virtuous moderate. Please.
The premise of the question seems to contain something I've seen many times, that someone who agrees with the dogma of a certain party isn't thoughtful. I reject that.
It's also that when someone disagrees with the dogma or positions of a party (which isn't ironclad as there are disagreements within each party. See illegal immigration as the latest manifestation) that that person is somehow more thoughtful and superior than someone who agrees with a party or ideological line. I reject that also. Both rejections are based upon the fact the premise isn't true.
I'm sure some who read my posts think I'm an unthinking, dogmatic party-line robot. They're wrong, and as narrow-minded as they allege that I am. And the only way I can convince them of that is when I go against whatever prevailing thought republicans (or conservatives) are currently espousing.
Sure you can be a thoughtful independent. But you can also be a waste of time that waits for a consensus to form on either side and then join it after other people -- be it political parties or the media -- think for you. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3224
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:40 pm: |
|
cjc, being an Independent does not equate to being a moderate. One can be independent and have either radical or moderate views on issues. I consider myself independent. I have no love for Democrats. I have fierce distrust and dislike for GWB. But I do not despise Republicans.
I am pro-choice (very strong belief), pro-death penalty (moderate belief), in favor of fiscal responsibility and small government (strong belief), anti government intrusiveness (extremely strong belief). Some might think that makes me a Libertarian, but they have several policies I strongly disagree with as well.
I've voted Democrat and Republican. In more local elections (state and municipal) I've voted for strong third party candidates.
My point is, being an independent is not the same as being a moderate. It simply means tat I am unwilling to align myself with either party, as there are issues on both sides that I agree with and disagree with. On election day, I've weighed the options and like most voters of the past 20 years, held my nose and pulled the lever. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5440
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:43 pm: |
|
Okay, I can't figure this one out. Why is it Libertarian to be pro-death penalty? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3225
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:47 pm: |
|
It's not, as far as I know. My position on the rest of the issues appear to mirror the Libertarian stance. Sorry for the confusion. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5441
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:48 pm: |
|
No problem. It's not like I get all my news and information here.  |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 568
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Take a subject: immigration.
How do you differ with the party you generally support? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2125
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:52 pm: |
|
the question should be: why aren't any of our politicians "thoughtfully independent?" |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3226
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:55 pm: |
|
There is no party I "generally support." That's my point. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5648
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:57 pm: |
|
FvF -- what is the republican party position on immigration? |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 569
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:04 pm: |
|
cjc-
" Come on up" ! Businesses need cheap labor hence republicans want guest workers and amnesty in general. Their idea of a bill is still being sorted out as Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh are giving them a moderate hosing on it, for cultural and media reasons. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1112
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Rastro,
If you feel you have to hold your nose to pull a particular lever in any given election, try this.
NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Swing the red handle to the right. Vote for the candidates who you think can do a good job in the office which they seek. As for the other offices; if you don't want any of the clowns to have the office, don't vote for any of them.
Maybe, just maybe, if a third, or more, of us showed up at the polling place and didn't cast a ballot for a particular office, the powers that be might get the point.
Its not the same as staying home.
Show up, pull the red handle, and don't pull a lever.
If you view the candidates as evil, voting for the lesser of the evils still gets you an office holder you don't want to have the office.
NONE OF THE ABOVE.
But, of course, that's just one man's opinion.
TomR |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 570
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:08 pm: |
|
of course some populist republicans and their base oppose it. But they are a captive audience. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14445
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 10:16 am: |
|
TomR,
Take the people who pull the red handle and don't pull any little grey levers. Call them NLP's (no-lever pullers).
If the elections counted the NLP's, then you would have a point. But I am under the impression that we don't count their numbers.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5649
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
FvF -- you're misreading a split Republican party on this immigration issue. There is no majority position on it, or there's no majority position on it that is going to carry the day. Unless things get right with the House in conference, there will be no bill and no definable Republican position. The House will sink this thing if the border isn't secured and illegals aren't given citizenship in a way that moves them to the front of the line over legal applicants. That 'captive audience' won't roll over.
The only majority public opinion out there is to secure the border and enforce the law on new (illegal) entries into this country. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Noglider,
While I am unaware of any official count of NLP's, I'd be surprised if there weren't somebody in each of the major political parties who keep track of such things. They keep track of the number of registered voters who don't show up at the polls. Don't they?
I look for the number of NLP's when sufficient information is available. Then again, I'm often a NLP.
TomR |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14455
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Yes, they count the no-shows, but that doesn't lead me to believe they count the NLP's. I believe there aren't many NLP's.
To me, the trouble with not pulling or not showing is that it defers to the majority. Doesn't that come across as tacit approval of the election results?
|
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 684
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 2:22 pm: |
|
It's my belief that the President matters on three fronts:
1) Taxes (They ipmact me and my children directly)
2) Govt. spending (the one man who can stop congressional spending)
3) International (The world sees the Pres as our Figure head, and he is the Commander in Chief)
These are the issues that are important to me, and I believe Presidential Power should not extend beyond these areas. The rest is up to congress, so I ignore all of the other Noise, and issues meaningless to me, and the ones the president can impact that will shape me and my childrens future. For example, while I stronlgy believe any two individuals should be able to get married whenver they want (regardless of Gender), I could care less what the President believes on this subject.
Whoever meets 2/3 criteria, gets my vote. Thus, every election I thoroughly disagree with many components of the party platform that won my vote. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2133
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 3:30 pm: |
|
I'm pretty far left in all my politics. I've voted for Democrats before. But I DEFINITELY WITHOUT A DOUBT do not support all things Dem. Not by a long shot. The two party system has let me down, countless times. The Democratic party very often cares more about the game of winning elections (ala Southerner-style thinking) probably because they have to, but because of this, they have such middle of the road thinking. They need to go FURTHER on most issues. They don't do enough or take a hard enough stance. The fact the Democrats could/would have supported the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, or that they were able to be manipulated into voting a way that they later might regret just shows me how f-ed up our political system is. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2134
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
TomR, if no candidate is appealing to me I generally will vote Green if there is a candidate. I want the Democrats to see that they lost my vote by not caring enough, not making a big enough stand, and not getting the job done. Not to mention I would like to see the Green party get some political clout in this country and make a positive difference. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3321
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Rock on, Alleygater!  |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Alleygater,
You're certainly free to pull the lever for a candidate who doesn't appeal to you.
I don't understand why you would do so; but you certainly can.
TomR
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Noglider,
If they keep track of the number of people who don't care enough to show up, why do you think that they wouldn't keep track of the number of people who do show up and express their rejection of all the available candidates?
The latter group can be convinced to vote for a candidate they deem worthy. The former group; well, it doesn't matter much whether or not they're convinced. They're not showing up.
And you're right. NLP's do defer to the majority. So do the no shows. So does the minority.
This sometime NLP doesn't approve of the majority's decision. But he accepts it.
TomR |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2139
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 5:42 pm: |
|
TomR, I think you might be missing my point. Although I doubt you are. I would vote for an unknown Green Party candidate over a candidate I knew that I didn't like. Because I don't think that this would be throwing away my vote. Not voting (IMO) is throwing away your vote...regardless of how you want to rationalize it. |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 570
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Alleygator pretty much echoes my thoughts on how screwed up our political system is. That the Democrats will push this nation down the socialist slope as Southerner so paranoically and "thoughtfully" points out is a joke and a half. They all belong to one party - the Republocrats. Personality driven politics takes precedence over cogent policy formulations in national and international contexts. This country has moved further and further to the right, to the extent that democrats just cannot afford to even characterize themselves as "liberals" for the fear of being identified with the far left. Sadly, that has happened because they lack conviction in themselves. One is forced to vote for them for the lack of a better alternative. They have played an instrumental role in destroying the viability of third parties who they always perceived as threats. Instead they now listen to a group of "moderates" who call themselves the "Third Way" for political advice.
The tragic irony is that folks like Gore and Kerry found their voices after they LOST the elections. We are seeing that now with Hillary who knows that that it is absolutely essential for her to eat into the conservative vote bank to stand even a remote chance of being (s)elected in the primaries. The question that they are asking themseleves is this: who is more conservative amongst us democrats?
Even if they win the elections this November, it will be because the voters are suffering from serious incumbency fatigue and not due to their pro-active and visionary ideas which are pathetically lacking in them. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 6:35 pm: |
|
mustt and Alley,
Great posts. Why haven't you been that rational in the past with all your handwringing and whining. Mustt, I agree neither party is where the diehards want them to be. You want the Dems to be more liberal and I want the Repubs to be more conservative. However, looking at the big picture, I realize all politicians moderate after the election in the hopes of "building consensus" which of course has ceased to happen about 30 years ago. I don't mind this because it means that if a Dem is elected that they won't get much liberal stuff accomplished just like GW hasn't done much for us conservatives. However, where we differ, is that it is truly important to win elections because of the little stuff. Clinton "little stuffed" us conservatives to death, and GW has "little stuffed" you libs to death (reference the thousand whiny threads).
Alley,
I agree with you but you are very pessimistic. Our political system is not f'ed up. Your expectations of our poitical system is f'ed up. You actually believe these guys when they make campaign promises and great speeches from the Oval. I don't believe much of anything they say because I understand they must say it and then the opposition party will work like heck to undercut them. It's the nature of the system and I like it. Aren't we all concerned about one party running amok? (Again, see the thousand threads since 2000).
TomR,
Your point is interesting but here is my take. If people did what you suggest (not voting) then the conspiracy theorists on this board and in this country would have a freakin field day. If a predominately Democratic District had 20,000 votes for a Democratic Senator and in that same election only had 11,000 votes for a Democratic President because they followed your vision, the libs would be screaming fraud and intimidation. Those Republicans stole 9,000 votes!! It wouldn't work. Heck, we can't even get voters to follow the instructions properly (see hanging chad fiasco! - punch to create a hole and check your ballot) and the theorists are still claiming fraud to this day.
Reingold,
Your right. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 216
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 7:05 pm: |
|
I've been NLPing for years and have been a no-show of late. Voter turnout has been in decline since 1960 for several reasons, including the youth vote enlarging the pool of eligible voters and the mediocrity of candidates and blurring of party distinctives.
If the Republican controlled Congress produces an amnesty for illegal aliens, I will hold my nose and vote a straight Democratic ticket. It's a meaningless gesture, but I'll feel a little better.
Cheers |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5651
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 9:07 pm: |
|
3ringale -- if the Republican controlled congress passes amnesty, they'll need the majority of Democrats who will vote for amnesty to get it. And that's who you'll vote for while holding your nose? |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 10:13 pm: |
|
I love how posters make such illogical statements like "holding my nose". There never was or will be a perfectly clean politician. Why do you libs make such statements. Are you really that afraid of reality? If you have to "hold your nose" then you should probably never leave your house because the world is a scary place. Why hold your nose. If you're going to vote for someone then do so with a clean conscious and pull the lever! |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14472
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
If I accepted your premise of having low standards for politicians, why do you set such high standards for the rest of us?  So we have sensitive noses. That's our imperfection. Let us have it.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2710
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 10:44 pm: |
|
if the Republican controlled congress passes amnesty, they'll need the majority of Democrats who will vote for amnesty to get it.
Not necessarily, but very likely. Suppose the "Republican controlled congress" passes "amnesty for illegal aliens" with a majority of Dems voting for it and a majority of Repubs voting against it. Suppose the Repub Pres. signs the bill. For which Party do you vote, 3ring, while holding your nose?
And as to voting a straight Party ticket, why would you vote for or against a candidate for Sheriff because of what Congress did? Perhaps that is what the originator of this thread was getting at.
The National Parties have general orientations so that in evaluating a candidate for Congress Party affiliation is a strong criteria, but it is not the only criteria. In evaluating a candidate for local office, Party affiliation is a rather minor criteria. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2711
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 10:50 pm: |
|
Why do you libs make such statements.
Is "lib" just a word for anyone you disagree with? 3ring, who spoke of holding his nose is certainly no "liberal" by any definition. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 11:13 pm: |
|
Alleygater,
If I missed your point, so be it.
If none of the candidates appeal to you, I still don't understand why you would vote for one of them. Green or otherwise.
If you're comfortable voting for the lesser of two, or three, or four bad choices, you certainly can.
While I try to behave in a rational manner, I try to rationalize nothing in U.S. politics. When I don't want to have any of the candidates representing me, that's when I vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE.
I never suggested that anybody not vote. I only suggest that that people not vote for a candidate because they're not as offensive as the "other guy".
People express their opinion, and their preferences, when voting. Sometimes its my opinion, and preference, that none of the people on the ballot hold the office which they seek. That's how I vote.
The people who don't show up; well, they've also expressed their opinion and preference. They didn't care enough to show up. Its their perogative. (They just shouldn't complain about the election later).
As for throwing one's vote away. You may see it one way and I may see it another. I wonder how people think the morning after election day, having voted for a candidate who had no chance of winning, although the voter genuinely believed that the candidate was the right choice. Did that voter throw their vote away?
TomR |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Southerner,
I've read you post to me, and acknowledge its presence.
Further, I sayith not.
TomR |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 7:32 am: |
|
anon,
I use the term lib because it is fun. If you aren't one then you shouldn't feel offended. Perhaps we have no libs on this board, but I sure do get responses when I use non-meaning words like lib. |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 571
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 7:48 am: |
|
Southerner,
Just as some of us on the left on MOL are able to reflect on the inadequacies of our party in particular and the political system in general, you too should develop the ability to conduct an inventory of your own ilk that comprises mostly of right wing nut jobs who refuse to see reason. Just because I am critical of the Democrats doesn't mean that I am adopting a balanced position toward the Republicans whose policies I think have brought only suffering to folks here and abroad. The only way you will have any kind of credibility on MOL is when you prove that you are not just a sheep who follows blindly but someone who can think independently and judging by your stubbornness, I think you have a long,long way to go. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 217
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 8:31 am: |
|
cjc,
The Democrats are for amnesty in any event, so I give them credit for being consistent. If I had to say one nice thing about a guy like Sen. Kennedy, it is that he is consistent and doesn't betray or surprise his constituents. Republicans have a habit of talking the talk, but not walking the walk when it comes to things like immigration.
Southerner,
You are right about the "holding the nose" line. It is a tired cliche and I usually avoid cliches like the plague.  But I was tired and on my second Guinness and it just slipped out. I may just sit this one out anyway.
Tom Reingold,
I have low expectations for politicians and am seldom surprised. My expectations for non-pols are not much higher. I'm actually not so hot myself, to tell the truth. I think there is an appropriate Shakespeare quote for this, but it escapes me.
anon,
You are correct that I am not a liberal. I've been called a lot of things, but never a liberal. Some people equate opposition to the Iraq war with liberalism, but there are sound conservative reasons to oppose it. For lack of a better term I would call myself a paleo-conservative, although even they might look askance at me.
Cheers
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1095
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 2:53 pm: |
|
mustt,
It must suck to be you with your political view. I am a sheep. I follow those going in the right direction. Just because you have no core values and have the liberal ability to flip flop depending on the wind I can understand why you come off as miserable. BAH! |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 572
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Pray tell me what those core values are, Southerner, that you treasure them so much! And you know I feel comorftable in my political skin because I am mostly surrounded by like-minded, sane and happy people. Looks like I touched a nerve there, S. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14494
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 5:48 pm: |
|
mustt_mustt is probably too modest to list his credentials. He is a professor, of political science, or something closely related.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 8:08 pm: |
|
And your point? All of us have credentials. Why many posters are so insecure in their posts that they need to list their "credentials" is comical. To me it doesn't matter. We on MOL are all well to do citizens. I doubt any of us are hurting to badly. We just differ in opinion. Mustt talks about listening to reason yet outside of posters like Reingold, Rastro, and a few other left leaning guys, the libs on this board are the ones not reasoning. The constant drumbeat against Bush has been hilarious for years now. Sure you guys can come up with great, well thought out reasons to whine and hate Bush, but only a few admit the true reason is because he beat your guy. It's no different than little league and you guys are the team that didn't get pizza after the game. Just admit you all are miserable because the country rejects your viewpoint. I know, that now with all the elections having been lost you point to the polls. Good for you. A reason to wake up in the morning. What will you do when the Repubs maintain control with 29%? I hope Foj already has some conspiracy posts ready. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14495
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 9:40 pm: |
|
I can't admit that is the reason I'm miserable, because I'm not miserable. And I guess I have to remind you that telling me how I feel is a line I cannot allow you or anyone to cross.
I don't know why I tossed in mustt_mustt's credentials. But give him credit for not tossing them in himself, OK? Now, who does that anyway?
You say that the libs generally are not reasoning, but what's your point? That the conservatives generally are?
My viewpoint is that there are more than two camps to belong to, and camps are also an unfortunate construct. And in all of my years of relative political awareness, it wasn't always just liberals versus conservatives. It may be convenient to divide the world into two types of people, but it's not realistic.
And what does well-to-do have to do with any of this?
|
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1895
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 9:46 pm: |
|
I was a life-long (liberal) Democrat, I changed my party affiliation about 6 months ago to the Green Party.
When it comes down to the wire Rebublican v. Democrat I'll still vote for the Democrat, although in my heart of hearts, I think both parties are so beholden to special interest groups that neither is true to their roots.
I wish the Dems would come out firmly for marriage - for any gender that wants to take the vows.
I also wish both parties would take a firm stance against soft money.
Also stop pandering to any religious influence - right - left, it all goes against the original plan for a well-oiled United States of America.
Even in Maplewood, we have a $20,000 Eruv - think how that money could go towards eleviating suffering instead of encouraging religious zealotry.
I'll probably get flamed a bit for this post, but politics and religion intertwined hurt too many people and IMO people have to speak and hopefully be heard. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14497
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 9:51 pm: |
|
I don't see how the eruv promotes religions zealotry, though I do agree that it could have been spent better.
For whatever it might be worth, there's a disproportionate number of Jews trying to stop the genocide in Darfur. http://www.savedarfur.org
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5010
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Quote:All of us have credentials. Why many posters are so insecure in their posts that they need to list their "credentials" is comical. To me it doesn't matter. We on MOL are all well to do citizens.
Are you implying that money is a credential that somehow increases your credibility? It may with some, but it doesn't with any of us here. Learn something, then we might listen. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1511
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 9:57 pm: |
|
I'm pretty far left in all my politics.
Gee Alleygater, thanks for clearing that up. Up to this moment I had no idea where you stood...
Lol...
-slk |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Nothing Tom,
I'm just talking out my arse. It's been a long week of work (credentials not listed). I agree with your premise, but we only have two choices regardless of how reasoned we are. I wish you and I could get in a room and create a perfect candidate. We can't so let's agree we'll keep pulling the lever for unperfect people. I won't be holding my nose because I'm not a neophyte to politics. Have a nice weekend Tom. Enjoy the nice weather because it's hot as blazes already down here. I started to agree with Gore about global warming until I realized it's the end of May! |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page