The Failed Presidency.

I would have to think one's perception of what may or may not be extreme would depend heavily on one's own proximity to either extreme. One faction I find in the minority here, at least on the political forums, are Centrists. I see the extremists of both persuasions as outnumbering the moderates. Of course, I consider myself a moderate Shocked

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I would have to think one's perception of what may or may not be extreme would depend heavily on one's own proximity to either extreme. One faction I find in the minority here, at least on the political forums, are Centrists. I see the extremists of both persuasions as outnumbering the moderates. Of course, I consider myself a moderate

And I suppose you consider me an extremist, though God only knows why... :wink:

0 Replies

I thought everyone thought they were centrists? I know I do. Wink

0 Replies

We're all moderates on this bus ... Laughing

0 Replies

This is a bus? Let me off, quick!

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

I thought everyone thought they were centrists? I know I do.

Oh, I don't think I'm a centrist; rather I have strongly held opinions which--taken alone--would place me at either political pole:

- Against federal welfare programs ("conservative")
- For same-gender civil unions ("liberal")
- Against affirmative action ("conservative")
- Against the war on drugs ("liberal")
- Against Roe V. Wade ("conservative")
- Against banning abortion ("liberal")
...

0 Replies

Not much for me to disagree with there, Scrat.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Not much for me to disagree with there, Scrat.

0 Replies

Good list, Scrat. There are far too many artificial divisions in these discussions. Although my list isn't the same as yours, mine is just as varied and "eccentric" (not centrist, Timber!). And my list would probably be just as annoying to those who cling to one side or another, don't rethink their positions in the face of a constantly changing reality.

Kindly explicate your pairing:

Against Roe V. Wade ("conservative")
Against banning abortion ("liberal")

We may be on the same page here, but then again maybe not...

0 Replies

I'm a Libertarian, not a quasi, but real one. If it doesn't hurt another, get out of my face Laughing

I'm also against welfare programs for other nations - especially, $27 billion ones Shocked

and welfare programs for the rich Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Kindly explicate your pairing:

Against Roe V. Wade ("conservative")
Against banning abortion ("liberal")

We may be on the same page here, but then again maybe not...

Gladly.

I am against Roe V. Wade, and hope to one day see it overturned, because it is bad law. The court reached into the Constitution like it was a tophat and pulled out Roe V. Wade like it was pulling out a rabbit. The premise--a Constitutional right to privacy--was a convenient fiction.

My stance against banning abortion (we're talking federal ban here) is based on the same reasoning; the feds have no standing in the abortion debate. Abortion is an issue between the people and the states, until someone steps up and amends the Constitution to change that (and I would prefer they not do so). If a given state wants to ban abortion, that's their business, though I wouldn't support an effort to ban abortion in my state.

0 Replies

In George we trust?Our prez talks to god...who talks back?

Quote:

0 Replies

the one God the Repubs belive in:Mammon:

Quote:

0 Replies

Well, I'd tend to agree about Roe. And certainly about the standing of federal law. I'm getting a real bean up my schnozz about the federal government accruing power. Roe was sloppy, well-intentioned, a mirror of the times.

I think this is an area (federal overreaching) in which conservatives and liberals could find common ground, if they could just keep their knees from jerking.

0 Replies

hobitbob,

This is a site dedicated to dialogue and discussion - not blogging. Merely pasting long articles from unnamed publications does not contribute to the quality of the dialogue here. Each of the several long articles with which you have cluttered this and other threads is highly partisan. None makes any attempt to achieve balance or objective understanding, instead each is a one-sided interpretation of very selectively reported anecdotes and generally unsupported allegations.

Are you unable to speak for yourself? Isn't it a bit boorish of you to thrust these very long and one-sided screeds in what ought to be a dialogue among the contributors here?

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

I'm a Libertarian, not a quasi, but real one. If it doesn't hurt another, get out of my face

I'm also against welfare programs for other nations - especially, $27 billion ones and welfare programs for the rich

go ahead on Bill...... Exclamation

:wink:

0 Replies

george wrote:

Each of the several long articles ... is highly partisan. None makes any attempt to achieve balance or objective understanding, instead each is a one-sided interpretation of very selectively reported anecdotes and generally unsupported allegations.

One is known by the company one keeps and one's credentials and probity are validated by one's actions.

0 Replies

george and timber

You get no agreement from me as regards information or opinion pasted into these threads. Each of us can choose to read all, or parts, or even - though this seems a bit dunderheaded - even none of an article that's been included. I spoke about this yesterday on another thread. Knowledge is acquired through depth and breadth of reading and experience as well as through the necessary process of focusing/balancing/comparing which occurs in forming and voicing an argument.

As regards labeling an opinion or source as 'extreme', as timber said elsewhere, that is going to be a function of one's own set of certainties, and the folks who hold with the labeler's views will all nod in shared agreement.

But discourse here, as in the community at large, must remain free to contain all opinions, even extreme opinions. Commonly what is perceived as extreme at a moment in time will later prove to be an appropriate view and we limit ourselves intellectually where we restrict voices heard.

More valuable, I think, would be to take specific issue with a key notion in the passage one finds extreme, and attempt to persuade the author or paster as to that notion's fallibility. If that fails, then seek the person out and cuckhold him.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

hobitbob,

This is a site dedicated to dialogue and discussion - not blogging. Merely pasting long articles from unnamed publications does not contribute to the quality of the dialogue here. Each of the several long articles with which you have cluttered this and other threads is highly partisan. None makes any attempt to achieve balance or objective understanding, instead each is a one-sided interpretation of very selectively reported anecdotes and generally unsupported allegations.

Are you unable to speak for yourself? Isn't it a bit boorish of you to thrust these very long and one-sided screeds in what ought to be a dialogue among the contributors here?

George, why don't you point out the "inaccuracies" you find in the articles instead of engaing in ad hominem attacks?
As for the "un-named publications," perhaps if you clicked on the links you would discover where they are from. there is another tighty-righty here with the sme posting style and the same difficulty addressing issues, might you be related? Confused

0 Replies

hobit,

I have found your articles very informative, though I would like to see the name of (or a link to) the publication in which they appeared.

0 Replies

The Failed Presidency.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know