So - YOU have No idea? Hmmmmmmmmm?
I honestly don't. I gave the only example of a politician who I opposed (Lula) he was a leftist and is the only politician who I would not even consider supporting. I favored the centrist F. Cardoso.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........weird.....
The Little Lord of the Manor obviously doesn't vote, but he horns in with his all important opinions about others' politics even so. Here's a clue--You don't pick a party and then define your friends and beliefs... You vote on a candidate because he espouses your beliefs more closely than anyone else. Of course, if your only political behavior is to disagree with everything, you may have a difficult time getting off the useless, carping sideline, and being a part of reality.
Craven de Kere Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:19 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement is overated. I prefer vehement disagreement.
Duly noted, everywhere you go. Its a little sad, carefully constructing such a nice environment, and then swaggering through like a bull in a china shop, wrecking it.
This is the first time I have taken such a personal dislike to anyone on a message board. Even the conspiracy theory nutbars on other boards are more palatable. Arguing a point is envigorating; arguing with a person is cheap, and takes away from enjoyable discussion. And, on the other boards, there is no caste system. The Rules are the same for everyone, not selective and defined by political leanings or pompous ownership of a brat.
When you're young and full of yourself--it is a potent combination to be a rare jackass, which Craven certainly is. I will leave his sandbox, and you may count the days before he is using you to get his sick thrills. Unless you choose to diplomatically sidestep his droppings, which an increasing number of the membership has admitted they do, you will all be where I am now: refusing to take his insufferable behavior silently. Placating a spoiled child is a tiring endeavor...
To the gentlemen in Politics... Absorbing, highly entertaining discussion. I greatly enjoyed your views, knowledge and intellect. Hope you will step over to Extreme Politics, Politically Correct Cafe, Free Speech or many of the Political offerings on the net. I am under other names, but will recognise you, I bet. To those who have been so kind--Many sincere thanks. Will remember you fondly.
Ultra Liberalism
"1) State whether you identify yourself as a liberal or a conservative."
I am an ultra liberal Democrat, in fact so far Left, that I have come back on the other side, to the Right.
"2) Identify one person, policy, or program that is strongly identified with the opposite political persuasion that you like or approve of, and explain why. (If you are X, tell us one person, policy, or program from Y that you like or with which you disagree, or something a Y politician did that you admire...)"
If I can disagree with the "sheep" in my own Democratic party, I would state that I hold Billy Boy and Hillary in utter contempt. Their Socialistic values and self serving agenda has left this party as an embarrassment. As for the Democratic party, it has become more important to it's self, than the people it should be serving. It has socially defined it's agenda (Socialism,) and is only representing those that can insure and perpetuate it's own, self serving needs. This is not a political party, "of and for the people," any longer.
Lash Goth wrote:The Little Lord of the Manor obviously doesn't vote, but he horns in with his all important opinions about others' politics even so. Here's a clue--You don't pick a party and then define your friends and beliefs... You vote on a candidate because he espouses your beliefs more closely than anyone else. Of course, if your only political behavior is to disagree with everything, you may have a difficult time getting off the useless, carping sideline, and being a part of reality.
Craven de Kere Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:19 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement is overated. I prefer vehement disagreement.
Duly noted, everywhere you go. Its a little sad, carefully constructing such a nice environment, and then swaggering through like a bull in a china shop, wrecking it.
This is the first time I have taken such a personal dislike to anyone on a message board. Even the conspiracy theory nutbars on other boards are more palatable. Arguing a point is envigorating; arguing with a person is cheap, and takes away from enjoyable discussion. And, on the other boards, there is no caste system. The Rules are the same for everyone, not selective and defined by political leanings or pompous ownership of a brat.
When you're young and full of yourself--it is a potent combination to be a rare jackass, which Craven certainly is. I will leave his sandbox, and you may count the days before he is using you to get his sick thrills. Unless you choose to diplomatically sidestep his droppings, which an increasing number of the membership has admitted they do, you will all be where I am now: refusing to take his insufferable behavior silently. Placating a spoiled child is a tiring endeavor...
To the gentlemen in Politics... Absorbing, highly entertaining discussion. I greatly enjoyed your views, knowledge and intellect. Hope you will step over to Extreme Politics, Politically Correct Cafe, Free Speech or many of the Political offerings on the net. I am under other names, but will recognise you, I bet. To those who have been so kind--Many sincere thanks. Will remember you fondly.
Lash,
There is a big difference between passionate response to an opinion and personal slurs. I told you that I disagreed with your opinion and have no distaste for you. I'll just leave it at that. I can't help it if you want to ignore the overture and dislike me. But even if you dislike me it doesn't equate this site to my sandbox. I didn't treat you differently and dislike is no reason to leave a site. You are only said you are leaving to get in the parting insults.
You got them, I disagree but won't answer the insults. And once again, I have no qualm with you and would love to continue to disagree with you on these boards.
Maybe Lash just needs a couple of Midol and a little chocolate.
timber
Quote:As I stated one's opinion will be vastly different depending on his/her own location on the spectrum relative to my own. Those to the left of me see me as right, those to the right see left.
I too find myself in this category. How you might label me politically depends on what issue we are discussing at the time.
I think most folks are devout, practicing Apathists, actually. In general, only when a particular favorite personal pig is about to be gored do many become "Involved".
timber
timberlandko wrote:I think most folks are devout, practicing Apathists, actually. In general, only when a particular favorite personal pig is about to be gored do many become "Involved".
That I definitely am not. In fact, I consider it a character flaw that I am too passionate about my opinions on these things, and too critical of those who don't care enough to educate themselves about issues which have an impact on their own governance and lives.
And I'm more than willing to let my pig be gored (small "g"
) if I'm convinced it is necessary for the benefit of our society and is allowed under our Constitution and laws.
- TW
Even though I'm late, I had to post in this interesting thread.
I am on the left, but close to center. Two people on the "other' side whom I admire and respect are Colin Powell and John McCain. Powell for his ability to affect decisions with his level headed analysis of the situation and McCain for his dogged questioning of policy that doesn't clearly state its purpose or its total costs.
To me, this thread is a valuable forum because it limits responses to acknowledging positive aspects of our political opposites. It forces us to step back from our predictable answers and look closely at the good work being done by the other side.
I heard part of an interview of two women who were part of a four person panel that was set up to discuss the issue of abortion. The purpose was finding a way to talk with each other without the usual outcome of angry name-calling. They had a professional help them refrain from using 'triggers' that always lead to personal insults.
The women said that these discussions didn't change their views, but it was well worth the time because they were able to better understand the opposite position and learned to respect each other's beliefs and attain the goal of discussing the subject with respect and reason. Wouldn't it be nice if we all learned to do this?
We have become so volatile and disrespectful of each other that debates have turned into name calling without ever addressing the issues. It has had the effect of turning off people who would otherwise be willing to participate if they thought it would be possible to debate reasonably and intelligently. Apathy is the unfortunate result.
I do hope Lash comes back.
Thanks for reminding us, Diane.
tresspassers, good topic.
I consider myself a conservative, but I lean a bit to the left.
I think Roe v. Wade should be upheld. I'm also against the faith-based initiatives, not only because of separation of church and state - it also seems to be on the shady side of our right to freedom of religion.
Diane, excellent post. I hope Lash comes back too. Whether or not one agrees with her, she has been a valuable contributor to A2K, in my opinion.
Roger, no need to thank me until I've had the chance to help you with your fashion challenged wardrobe when we all meet in Florida.
Craven de Kere wrote:2) I like little and find fault with much. I don't waste time supporting things when opposition campaigning is a far more economical use of political capital.
Craven, can you explain this comment a little more? Do you mean this is true for people actually involved in the political process, or do you mean it is more fun? Or something quite different?
Hmm, I consider myself middle-of-the-road but I'm probably more liberal than conservative.
As for conservative issues I like, I really do favor the death penalty. Just, not in its present form - I think, given its ramifications, it should be treated far more seriously than it is. E. g. not gone for as often, and capital cases should be treated as having to be as close to perfect as possible. That means, excellent lawyers for both sides, access to all evidence, DNA testing for every murder and rape case and any other capital case which would warrant it (e. g. a burglary case if the burglar bled at the scene, etc.). This would be in an effort to eliminate causes for endless appeals and to eliminate as many mistaken convictions as possible, while maximizing justice. The state of our court systems when it comes to the application of the death penalty is pathetic and should be completely overhauled.
I'm finding bipartisanship is beyond my capabilities at this time, though I greatly respect the effort in others! Tipped off by NPR, I did find an article in the Daily Princetonian describing a bipartisan effort at Princeton last year about this time. Here are some excerpts:
I'm left of center now; was at one time early in my life a registered democrat. After I saw the tax and spend philosophy of the far left, I changed to a repub. When I saw how mean-spirited the repubs are, I changed to independent. I now vote for the individual I feel best reflects my philosophy - doesn't matter what political party they belong to. c.i.
Reading Cicerone's post, I realize the strength of my own belief that problem isn't partisanship but the absence of serious debate. The healthy debate I'd like to see includes fierce and well-though-out discussion of specific issues without the bullying, cliches, and rhetoric we've witnessed during the past twenty years or more -- in Congress, in campaigns, in the media and among ourselves. For example, the "tax and spend philosophy" ascribed to the Democrats is a more apt description of Republican actions in that time period. The corrupting relationship of government and corporate interests is blamed on Republicans, but if you look at it honestly, both parties have dirty hands. Only if we scrape away the veneer of "bipartisanship" (really, a display of intellectual and moral laziness), and agree to drop the cliches and rhetoric, will we begin to address the important issues and establish genuine, necessary and effective compromise.
