compromise?

flaja wrote:

What gives you any more right than I have to decide who goes in what category? How can you complain about my definitions when you apparently expect me to accept yours?

I thought I asked you that? You've excluded whole sections of the Republican party who would call themselves conservative, several Presidents and just about all of Congress, then ridiculed me for excluding one radical group. Do you work on the Clinton campaign?

flaja wrote:

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe I am older than you, possibly better educated than you and have studied the issue of political ideology more than you have and thus have more experience in analyzing political issues than you have?

Pretty weak way to try and win an argument. No, not really. At my age, if you are significantly older, I would have to put your positions down to senility. Based on your very narrow definitions of conservative (and your extremely broad definition of liberal), I think your studies and observations have been biased by your personal beliefs. Still I was hoping for a good debate instead of what we achieved. While your education might be in different disciplines, I doubt you are significantly "more educated."

flaja wrote:

Gains and losses have to be on a sliding scale and relative to the present day and age. Otherwise I could point out that simply having the income tax at all is a liberal gain that conservatives have yet to overcome. Clinton's extra tax bracket for the rich is a gain for liberalism considering that we used to have no income taxes at all.

But I clearly defined my time period as "since Nixon."

flaja wrote:

Quote:
You say that the elected reps are not representatives of the conservatives at home and then immediately say that liberals must support thus and such because their elected officials did.

Considering that the size of our Congress relative to the size of our population is small when compared to places like Canada and the U.K. and our two party system and lack of proportional representation usually means that voters have to compromise and accept a candidate that is their 2nd or even 3rd choice I can reasonably say that the people who make it to Congress are seldom totally representative of their constituents. Bob Dole was not my 1st choice for the GOP nomination in 1996 and GW wouldn't have been my 1st choice in 2000 or 2004 (had I been a Republican); neither truly represents my views as a conservative. You cannot take either Dole or Bush as a textbook conservative.

Exactly! They don't represent your views. But still, you missed my point. If you say that you cannot judge conservatives by the actions of their representatives, then you cannot judge liberals by the actions of their reps either. Isn't that a fair statement?

flaja wrote:

Quote:
Not only that but the Republicans, anticipating the possible threat of the filibuster decided to load up on pork, so they are absolved of all harm.

Meaning that they abandoned conservatism and thus are not conservatives.

Very convenient. Same thing with all the liberal Congressmen. Heck, they aren't real liberals anyway.

flaja wrote:

Quote:
But this one I just have to answer: Cafepress is a business selling political items among other things, not a liberal organization. If you go to their website, you can get yourself a "Huckabee Rocks" tee to wear in public and a "McCain 08" to wear around the house.

Are you trying to say that Cafepress is a moderate outfit?

NO, IT IS A BUSINESS SELLING STUFF. IT HAS NO POLITICAL AFFILIATION.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

I thought I asked you that? You've excluded whole sections of the Republican party who would call themselves conservative,

Because they are not conservative by my standards. But this doesn't give you any right to insist that my standards are wrong or that yours are right.

Quote:

then ridiculed me for excluding one radical group.

Because that group is liberal according to the standards that I say are liberal. If you can exclude PETA from liberalism, why can I not likewise exclude certain Republicans from conservatism?

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
This is an interesting idea... but you fail in your details. Your definition of liberal is horrible in that by this definition... there are no liberals.

There are very few people who want "Human rights for animals". All liberals want an public education system that works. The majority of liberals want a balanced budget (and the conservatives seem to do a worse job at getting one).

So you are setting up and argument with a mythical "liberal" who doesn't exist.

If you don't include real people, this is going to be a very boring discussion.

If a majority of liberals want a balanced budget, why didn't the liberals who controlled Congress during the Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton administration never pass one?

And the conservatives who took over Congress in 1994 while Clinton was president did pass a balanced budget and forced him to sign it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

And the conservatives who took over Congress in 1994 while Clinton was president did pass a balanced budget and forced him to sign it.

Pity they lost all interest in the issue once a Republican was President. They sure never tried to force President Bush to sign a balanced budget.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

flaja wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
This is an interesting idea... but you fail in your details. Your definition of liberal is horrible in that by this definition... there are no liberals.

There are very few people who want "Human rights for animals". All liberals want an public education system that works. The majority of liberals want a balanced budget (and the conservatives seem to do a worse job at getting one).

So you are setting up and argument with a mythical "liberal" who doesn't exist.

If you don't include real people, this is going to be a very boring discussion.

If a majority of liberals want a balanced budget, why didn't the liberals who controlled Congress during the Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton administration never pass one?

And the conservatives who took over Congress in 1994 while Clinton was president did pass a balanced budget and forced him to sign it.

Wasn't Slick's response to the first conservative attempt to balance the budget to let the government run out of money so the parts that were non-essential had to shut down?

I guess this means that, by the logic displayed by the engineers of the world, the liberal Clinton wanted a smaller government because he wouldn't sign a law that would have funded the government in its entirety.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

real life wrote:
And the conservatives who took over Congress in 1994 while Clinton was president did pass a balanced budget and forced him to sign it.

Pity they lost all interest in the issue once a Republican was President. They sure never tried to force President Bush to sign a balanced budget.

Part of the reason why conservatives didn't go to the polls in 2006 when the Republicans lost control of Congress.

0 Replies

Flaja, from the first page:

Quote:

Isn't marijuana detrimental to the brain cells of them who use it?

There aren't any conclusive studies which show this to be true, certainly not as much as alcohol.

Quote:

Would you want someone who is high on marijuana in a classroom with your child? Would you let such a person drive a forklift at a Home Depot while you were shopping there? And if you were having a heart attack, would you want an EMT who is high coming to your aid?

No, but so what? What does this have to do with legalizing a drug? I don't want any of those people using alcohol or cold medicines before doing those jobs; doesn't mean that they should be illegal.

Quote:

Furthermore, isn't marijuana also a threshold drug, i.e., people who start with marijuana often end up using things like cocaine and heroin?

Sorry, but once again there's no actual evidence of this. This is an old meme put out by Harry Anslinger in his anti-marijuana campaign in the 40's and 50's.

Cycloptichorn