Reply
Fri 19 Mar, 2004 03:37 pm
Okay, here's the idea. I am challenging both sides to post at least one idea from the opposition that you agree with, or at least can tolerate. There must be something that isn't completely reprehensible to you about the opposition. Maybe we can focus on the similarities here, instead of rehashing the same old "liberals are godless heathens" and "conservatives are callous scumbags" thing, and hopefully, the next time you are in a heated debate with some moron from the other side, you can come back here, and see that everyone is not such a frustratingly stubborn blockhead after all.
I lean a little bit to the left most days, so here's my olive branch to the right.
I agree with most of the conservative take on immigration. Harsh penalties for illegal immigration, eliminate the rights of the illegal, enforce the current laws.
So let's see if you've got the cajones to join in.
The problem is that many conservatives are sympathetic to the plight of "undocumented" aliens (or at least to the plight of the employers who benefit from them.)
You can't eliminate the rights of undocumented aliens, without eliminating rights of American citizens.
(Whether this is liberal or consersative, I can't tell. It is hard to tell the difference any more.)
I believe in the right to own and operate guns. I stop at the singleminded stance of the nRA wherein they preach thqat most anyone may own clickable auto assault rifles , machine guns, and plastic (undetectable) pistols. I think they draw the line on RPGs
I think I understand the question but I am just a might bit confused.
Please tell me which of these apply as an olive branch to conservatives
1). I believe in fiscal responsibility especially with the deficit.
2). I believe that individual citizens should be protected from the powers (i.e. wiretaps etc.) of the Federal government.
3) I believe in State's rights to institute their own marriage laws.
4) (As I noted above) I believe that business should be given easy access to immigrant labor without over government interference.
Are these liberal or conservative issues? Please help me figure it out.
Thats funny. I was just arguing with Pistoff and Solar on another thread, because they claimed Bush wasn't spending a cent on AIDS in Africa until all of Africa had stopped abortions (thats actually what Pistoff said).
Lemme state again that - whatever justified criticisms one might have about the way the Bush administration's support for combating AIDS is framed exactly - I think he has done the right thing by multiplying the funding for it and I think he's been brave by funding a mixed program that focuses both on abstention and condoms.
Definitons
Now that Neocons are on the scene the Conservative vs Liberal notions are blurred. Many people still seem to be confused about this.
I actually agree with a few Conservative notions, such as Balanced Budgets, the Right to Bear Arms abeit with some reasonable restrictions, such as no Uzis Mac 10s etc., States Rights with reasonable limitations.
I can respect various views but when some people outright lie about issues, I do become furious.
Lately, I feel that issues must be debated on a one to one basis and not a blanket view of how Conservatives, Neocons, Dems, Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists, Communists view everything.
Assuming how someone may feel strongly on any issue can lead to huge misunderstanings.
Assuming that
ebrown_p wrote:Are these liberal or conservative issues? Please help me figure it out.
<smiles> good one, ebrown ;-)
Well, as much as Bush disgusts me, I gotta give him credit one one thing:
When he sets his mind to something, he sticks to it.
The entire way he's going about this "war on terror" and Iraq thing is wrong in my eyes, but goddam, he just refuses to budge an inch on any aspect of the plan. He wanted to invade Iraq. He didn't give a crap who was with him, so he just did it. He wanted tax cuts, Boom... its done. He wanted that conservative judge, Bang... he sticks him in on a temporary basis until next year. Gotta give it to the man,
When he wants something, he gets it.
You know how you used to watch those old Superman movies and think to yourself "Jeez, if only we could get Lex Luthor to come to the 'good' side, what a powerful ally we'd have"? Thats kind of how I feel about Bush.
I like the idea put forth by the Republicans called John McCain.
Curious
Not trying to put you on the griddle. Please list the issues that McCain espouses that you find favor with.
Thanks.
Joe, that's pretty funny. It almost looked like you were actually saying something there. :wink:
okay, let's see:
John McCain is honest and makes clear-eyed statements about:
Campaign Finance, Global Warming and Americorps, to name three.
He just fought to close the Gun Show Loophole which is about as brave an act for an Arizonan as you can get.
And when smarmy reporters asked him if John Kerry was weak on defense he simply spoke the truth which stunned the media hacks to no end.
His call for an elevation of the presidential campaign ought to be heeded but I fear will not.
Joe
Thanks Joe
Thanks for the reply.
Would you vote for a Kerry/McCain team?
While I butter the underside of my toast, I realize that those who butter the topside are not absolutely insane, for if they drop their toast the buttered side does not hit the ground.
Hey, yeah... in fact, it's more likely now that I play it out in my mind. I guess they are completely insane.
I think a Kerry McCain ticket would not only be unprecedented but would be unstoppable. Even Ralph would have to shut up.
Had he won the Republican nomination in 2000, I would have been hard pressed to decide between him and Al Gore. They are both strong on the environment, both were and are fiscally wise regarding Social Security, both have their heads on straight in dealing with foreign policy. Gore was a little wacky, a bit of a dweeb, McCain leans too hard toward military spending and holds back on domestic things, calling too many things pork, but he gets passing grades from me a lot.
Don't get me wrong. I like Kerry, and almost any other Democrat, a lot more than McCain, but I see him as one of those rare things in politics - a statesman. You won't get me to say that about men like GW Bush or Cheney or Newt or a host of others in the GOP.
McCain
I need to study his issue more closely. It did tick me off that he campaigned for gw recently. It surprised me because of the repugnant, gutter way the GOP attacked him when he was running for Pres. He is a likeable Republican. I don't place him in the same boat as the Neocons or most of the low lifes that are in the Admin. at this time.
About gw: "When he sets his mind to something, he sticks to it."
Yeah, many seriel killers and rapists are like that too. Doesn't make me admire them.
Now, now pistoff, this is supposed to be a non-argumentative forum. :wink:
farmerman wrote:I believe in the right to own and operate guns. I stop at the singleminded stance of the NRA wherein they preach thqat most anyone may own clickable auto assault rifles , machine guns, and plastic (undetectable) pistols. I think they draw the line on RPGs
"Assault rifle" is a meaningless term. Ask 15 people & you'll probably get 16 different definitions. I'd gues that MOST semi-automatic rifles can be modified to shoot full-auto.
Incidentally, the Army's M-16A2 (an "assault rifle" according to most people, I'd expect) does NOT fire full-auto.
There is no such thing as a "plastic" pistol. ONE pistol (made by Glock, I think the model 92 9 & 10mm) that I know of has a polymer frame--but most of it is still metal, & easily seen by a metal detector. Its biggest advantege is simply that it's considerably lighter than a steel-framed pistol.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace