Every US citizen has the right to believe as they want. Emerald was implying that he listens to opposing views i the course of forming his opinions. You seem to imply that if those opposing views do not match your beliefs, you do not listen.
But, of course, the subtlety of Emerald's post and what I just posted is lost on you.
This is really a serious question for the party loyalists who absolutely believe that only their party has all the answers all the time and any thought to the contrary is absurd, nonsense, illogical, and unworthy.
All of you know exactly who you are!! My question is very very simple--WHY?? How any human being living outside the caves of Afghanistan can belive any one party ALL the time and absolutely refuses to even consider any other debate outside the fold of the party platform to me has always been troubling to say the least.
Again, this is a really serious question and I would love to hear why many of you think that only your party is right every damn time and the rest of the world is wrong all the other times.
Actually emerald, I oppose the president's support of senior prescription drug benefits. The reason why is that I think the country should start asking about the proper role of government. In its most simplistic form, conservatives believe that government should do only what it must do as outlined in the constitution, in its purest form, liberals believe that it should do as much as it can. When you look at the problems that have arisen from much of the social spending in this country, you need to ask what is the bang for the buck that we are getting and what is the cost of freedom that we are willing to give up.
The constitution does not outline most of the government functions which you take advantage of. For example, the constitution does not call upon the federal government to finance the building of roads or help fund research at colleges and universities that make all of our lives easier eventually. It does not call for the government to insure that our food and drink are safe to consume. Or for the matter, the constitution does not call for government to weigh in on a lot of issues, that if left to the populace to resolve, would result in blood flowing in streets.
The commonwealth and common-well-being aspect of a nation of people dictate that government get involved in activities that are not explicitly written in the nation's charter document. The separation of powers doctrine built into our constitution is there to insure that all intervention by the government is done in a balanced manner. Such is the nature of the beast and that is something that you and those whose ideology you oppose seem to lose sight of.
Maybe you would like to go back to the days of private toll roads and end up throwing your dimes into cans held by kids as you drive across their parents lawns on your way to work. That last sentence may sound silly, but if "your" vision is taken to it's logical conclusion, that is exactly what we will have.
person favorable to progress and reform", and the original definition of a conservative was "a person favorable to maintaining the status quo". Somewhere along the way, the definition of a liberal came to include generousity and spendthriftiness, while conservative came to imply fiscal responsibility. I think you would be more correct if you said a libertarian believes that a government should do only what it must do as outlined in the constitution, and a socialist believes it should do as much as it can. Too many conservatives have enacted too many new laws for me to believe they are interested in less government.
The liberal and conservative labels are very muddled these days. Traditionally, a conservative should believe in the preservation of the constitution, and liberals would be open to change. These days, conservatives want to amend the constitution for such things as heterosexual marriage, prayer in schools, abortion, etc. (imagine that, gay marriage is so offensive, there needs to be an amendment right up there with the Bill of Rights!) They defend the right to keep & bear arms, but get all soft on freedom of speach, illegal search & seizure, due process, etc.
As for the role of government, you have to be careful what you wish for. I believe it was Jefferson who said "that government is best which governs least", Henry David Thoreau said "if that is true, then the best government is the one that governs not at all". That is of course anarchy. I don't think we want that.
The golden rule would be to arm to the teeth. The only problem is that bullets and or gunpowder (in case you make your own bullets)will run out and there will be no store to run out to for reloads. The problem for them is that the bullets will run out well before the charging angry hordes will.
That us right-wingers achieve our hidden agenda of displacing the Government through fair taxation and throw the U.S. into anarchy. Yeah baby! OK, now that our goal has been accomplished and the world is in tatters. Why the hell would any of us right-wingers be living on a freakin' street waiting for angry hordes to come and steal our women folk?!? Damn it boy! Don't you know we'd gather up the clan and head to the family compound in the mountains, in a remote little valley accessible only by a narrow road running along a purty little stream full of brook trout.
We right-wingers would be amongst other like-minded extremists, maybe even a few kissing cousins! We'd band together and form a cool militia with lots of guns and IED's, even some Class III hardware. Maybe some knives and sharpening stones! We'd assign perimeter security duties, conduct recon patrols, kill and eat helpless woodland creatures. Brew a little shine. Basically having a good ole' time.
Those angry hordes will be too busy looting rich liberals and moderates. But even if they stumble upon us, they won't stand a chance!
RLTW
often contemplated the idea of becoming a "hermit", or living in a remote compound surrounded by people who think and live like I do, and I like the idea of self-sufficiency. Unlike most Americans, I am quite capable of dealing with the logistics of self-sufficiency since I am proficient at mechanics, engineering, agriculture, hunting and fishing, etc. But I keep coming around to several realizations. If, lets say the world economies and governments colapsed, and I were sitting there with my self-sufficiency, my storehouses of food, my land, and guns and ammo, it is just a matter of time before the hungry hordes come to my place. I have a generous nature, but I am also aware of the lifeboat theory. If there are too many people in the lifeboat, someone has to go, or we all perish. I don't like the idea of having to kill my fellow man to avoid sharing my larder. If that makes me a bleeding heart, so be it. I hope I never am faced with having to adopt a siege mentality in the first place.
Alot of sarcasm, some truthfulness. I believe in self-sufficiency 110%. I also agree with all of your points. I hope that kind of scenario never happens but I have a plan if it does, and I'll head off to the mountain homestead with my extended family in tow and make the best of it.
RLTW
You won't be welcome.
After America is broke from fighting wars for I$rael and has been overun by the third world masses, you will want to join up with people like me who have been warning of this for months. You reap what you sow, now live with them.
If you are foolish enough to storm the compound I'm at, you will die!! Make no mistake about it. yeah, if there are enough masses to storm the place, you may suceed in entering, but rest assured many will perish trying.
After you have succeded in pillaging my farm, then what?? The masses will eventually run out of places to raid and will have know choice but to turn on each other.
The majority of people who will form their own communities will be white. The same people who you lemmings call "racists". When you come knocking on my door for help from escaping the third world,what will you call me then??
There is absolutely no way that a small group of people can hold off masses, regardless of how determined that group is. The group will be found and overrun. The poster of the fantasy is trying to be sarcastic (oh well, some of us are better at that than others). I think that even he can read the tealeaves.
-- Modified on 8/7/2004 5:43:46 PM
I have several problems with both parties positions, however we are faced with a choice between two candidates, we do not get to build our President position by position and then vote. The Republican party is allot closer to my personal opinions than the Democratic party.
Every US citizen has the right to believe as they want. Emerald was implying that he listens to opposing views i the course of forming his opinions. You seem to imply that if those opposing views do not match your beliefs, you do not listen.
But, of course, the subtlety of Emerald's post and what I just posted is lost on you.
and you are wrong. Toomuchvodka has clearly demonstrated in his feverish posts here that anyone who supports Bush is a right-wing Republican, or "RepubliCON" to put it in his terms. It's the same with a few self-proclaimed moderates also. They read a post supporting Bush, or fair taxation, and they make a knee-jerk assumption about the political leanings of the poster.
Maybe the subtlety of the poster's other comments is lost upon them.
RLTW
- Modified on 8/6/2004 10:43:39 PM
-- Modified on 8/6/2004 10:50:29 PM
many people do believe, however, is that one party more accurately reflects their personal beliefs and would be more in harmony with their interests. I, personally, do not like many of the actions of George W., but you have to add up the pros and cons and vote for someone, often the lesser of two evils.