|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 63 of 176:
| 
Mar 13 00:44 UTC 2006 |
cyklone said:
"In part because it's the personal inability of liberals such as him
to coherently present important liberal positions that undermines the
credibility of the positions themselves. As someone who believes
liberalism has some very important goals. I've had it with the damage
the likes of Richard have done to the good name of liberalism. If
those who support and advocate honest liberalism don't make the effort
to confront those who hold liberalism back, how can anyone expect
America as a whole to take liberalism seriously (as opposed to seeing
it as some easy target for conservatives to bash)?
"
thats ridiculous. cyklone you attack me as not presenting important
liberal ideas, yet YOU don't present any ideas at all. At least I
do. In fact the vast majority of all your posts on grex are personal
attacks. I can't remember the last time cyklone posted to present an
IDEA as opposed to attacking me or someone else.
And jep, my ideas are not simplistic. They are basic ideas that all
liberal democrats basically adhere to, such as that government is a
good thing and a valuable and necessary thing and that the role it
plays ought to be far more than just fighting wars. Social spending,
done in the right ways, is a good thing. The government is of, by and
for the people, it is the great experiment in representative
democracy. Jep, I want you to answer me, what is SIMPLISTIC about
that? You are as bad as cyklone, you attack without presenting many
ideas of your own.
All I want is a government that gives every citizen a fair chance to
be who and what they want to be, and doesn't force people into
situations they can't get out of. This is why I support raising the
minimum wage, tying it to inflation and creating the incentives to run
government better and more efficiently, while at the same time
acknowledging the responsibilities of government and what it is
supposed to be, which is far far more than just a mechanism to raise
an army.
jep tell me what are your ideas? I haven't heard many from you, only
you calling mine simplistic. What are yours? Besides outlawing
abortion I mean.
I'd ask cyklone for ideas but it is clear he doesn't have any. He
will only ever attack me and others. Better to present ideas and be
ridiculed as simplistic, than to present no ideas at all and just sit
around "picking holes" in other people's ideas.
|
richard
|
|
response 64 of 176:
|
Mar 13 00:49 UTC 2006 |
I might also point out that I entered this item about raising the
minimum wage. I entered the item about the repeal of the patriot
act. I enter in fact a great deal of the political items on this
board and I have for a long time. I am committed to pushing political
debate wherever I can. I fairwitness the politics conf, dead as it is
around here. I'm trying to push discussion on the important issues.
I wish cyklone, jep, and nharmon entered as many items as I did about
political issues, soliciting ideas and such, as opposed to just
posting to make personal attacks.
|
jep
|
|
response 65 of 176:
|
Mar 13 00:56 UTC 2006 |
I think you'll find, if you review my responses in the political items
(and for that matter, all items) I really don't do much personal
attacks. I am generally pretty much interested in debate. I also
think I listen to people's points pretty well and respond to what they say.
|
richard
|
|
response 66 of 176:
|
Mar 13 01:07 UTC 2006 |
re #65 jep I'll give you that.
What I am is outspoken, and cyklone thinks that does "incredible harm
to liberal ideas" I believe strongly that the liberal cause has been
beaten down into the ground by the right wing, who have simply been
more outspoken than we have. None of the ideas I talk about are
anything but liberal orthodoxy and cyklone knows this. Raising the
minimum wage? abortion rights? protecting social security from
privatization?
What is wrong with being outspoken, what is wrong with showing passion
for the issues? Cyklone if you don't like my approach fine, it takes
all kinds to make the world. But it just hasn't worked for the
democratic party to be good little centerists who keep their mouths
shut and make as little waves as possible. When you don't speak up,
you get crushed. Speaking out is the american way, and it is
something more people need to do. I believe cyklone, who sits in
judgement and seems more comfortable attacking the left for being too
outspoken than attacking the right for anything, does more harm to the
liberal cause than I do.
I go out on the sidewalks and I pound the pavement for my candidates
and my causes. I was at a reception for a congressional candidate
today. He's not in my district, he's one district over, but I'm
going to support him financially and otherwise, because he's outspoken
and also believes the left has spent too many years muzzled by the
center in the party. Come back to me cyklone and tell me how I'm
damaging the cause when you can say what and where you've done and
what your ideas are. Everyone knows mine. What are yours?
|
naftee
|
|
response 67 of 176:
|
Mar 13 02:32 UTC 2006 |
richard's a sidewalk thumper
|
slynne
|
|
response 68 of 176:
|
Mar 13 04:56 UTC 2006 |
I am not sure that good arguments are what win elections anyways.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 69 of 176:
|
Mar 13 05:44 UTC 2006 |
Re #57: those liberal concepts have been put forward very strongly by most
Democratic leaders.
|
klg
|
|
response 70 of 176:
|
Mar 13 11:51 UTC 2006 |
I definitely believe that RW is a "typical liberal" - meaning a person
with good intentions, but who fails to consider his "more government
can just solve the problem" beliefs against (1) the realities of human
nature and (2) the realities of history.
|
twenex
|
|
response 71 of 176:
|
Mar 13 12:43 UTC 2006 |
Being lectured by a right winger on the "realities of history". Or of anything
else, actually. Now I've seen everything.
|
jep
|
|
response 72 of 176:
|
Mar 13 13:59 UTC 2006 |
re resp:66: Richard, orthodoxy doesn't do much for me. I know what
most liberals want, in broad outlines, as well as you do. What is more
interesting to me, is why they want it, or better yet, why *I* should
want it.
It can be done that someone presents an argument that's so reasonable
and well thought out that I will change my opinion. I have done so on
several topics, at least in part as a result of things I've discussed
on Grex or M-Net. I changed my position on the death penalty, and all
of my opinions on gay rights, directly because of discussions in which
I participated here. I've gone in the other direction, too. I used to
be wishy-washy about abortion but I'm solidly against it now.
I hope you don't decide to view it as a personal attack, but I haven't
been persuaded that much by any of your arguments as of yet. For one
thing, it is awfully hard to convince me I said (or think) the opposite
of what I wrote. For another, it is almost as hard to just state the
opposite of what I believe -- for example, that conservatives *MUST* be
in favor of minimum wage, or for abortion -- and get much out of it.
And for a third, it's not convincing to me when you ignore even the
most obvious and inevitable circumstances which disagree with your
position. I perceive all three of those things happening quite a bit
when you post on political issues.
I agree that you care a lot about your positions. I think you are
pretty aware of what the current political issues. But I think your
positions seem more like blind orthodoxy than considered positions
based on principles and fact. I have never once seen evidence that
you've considered any possible exception to the position mandated by
your side. All of the rest of us (except I think klg) have some
doubts, and some recognition that the other side has points, too. How
can you ask anyone else to think about what you are saying when you
refuse to think about what they say?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 73 of 176:
|
Mar 13 14:16 UTC 2006 |
Richard says "cyklone you attack me as not presenting important liberal
ideas." Ummm, no. If you would learn to read, you'd see I said you had a
problem presenting COHERENT liberal ideas. Oh what a difference a word
makes. You have a made "word" mistakes several times this past month.
There's a pattern there you may want to look at. In fact, if you actually
set aside your emotions for a minute and take the time to read what I
wrote, you'd see I was criticizing the FORM of what you say, not the
substance. Do you even recognize that when you botch the form part, the
substance part gets short shrift?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 74 of 176:
|
Mar 13 19:08 UTC 2006 |
klg: what are the realities of human nature? tell me.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 75 of 176:
|
Mar 13 22:35 UTC 2006 |
> You want the lower paid workers to make more money while those on the upper
> end of the scale make the same or less.
I don't know who the "you" is there, but this is the typical trick of giving
away other peoples' money. It works so well that there are communist states
all over the world, thriving. Oh wait...
|
twenex
|
|
response 76 of 176:
|
Mar 13 22:36 UTC 2006 |
That's right. Only rich people deserve to make money.
|
twenex
|
|
response 77 of 176:
|
Mar 13 22:41 UTC 2006 |
Or be allowed to get sick, then better.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 78 of 176:
|
Mar 13 22:41 UTC 2006 |
Who said that?
|
twenex
|
|
response 79 of 176:
|
Mar 13 22:44 UTC 2006 |
That's the logic of drivelly, self-serving whining about "giving away other
people's money."
|
albaugh
|
|
response 80 of 176:
|
Mar 13 22:51 UTC 2006 |
Maybe to your lack of comprehension. But you've made it clear which way you
lean. Must come from years of having The Dole.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 81 of 176:
|
Mar 13 22:58 UTC 2006 |
No, it's just a false dilemma of presenting things in extremes. There are
societies, both present and past, that tried too hard to take money away
from the rich to give to the poor, and they ended up not working as a result.
There are also societies that try too hard to let the rich keep everything
and the poor die in the gutter (sometimes literally) and they don't work
either.
|
twenex
|
|
response 82 of 176:
|
Mar 13 22:58 UTC 2006 |
No, it comes from years of having compassion.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 83 of 176:
|
Mar 13 23:08 UTC 2006 |
hey, congrats!
|
twenex
|
|
response 84 of 176:
|
Mar 13 23:08 UTC 2006 |
Marc slipped.
The usual rightwing response to the idea of giving money to the government
to look after the poor and needy is that the responsibility of giving it
should be left to the individual, and the responsibility of distributing it
should be left to charities. Quite obviously, however:
A. If you're going to be giving it away anyway, why shouldn't the money go
from the citizens to the government to the needy, instead of from citizens
to charities to the needy? The government is elected and can be called to
account for misspending money. Charities either can't, or if they can it's
a lot harder to prosecute 1,000 bent charities than 500-odd bent politicians.
B. If the worry is that politicians are immune from prosecution, change the
law so they aren't immune to prosecution for laundering money. Again, a lot
easier than prosecuting an indeterminate number of charities.
C. Given A and B, the obvious conclusion to draw is that those who want the
government "stopped from spending 'their' money" aren't the slightest bit
interested in providing for the poor and the sick, and are just using that
argument, in the full knowledge that it's a pile of crap, in the hope that
some poor, naive devil will buy it and allw the rich to make even MORE money
whilst the poor struggle harder to make even less.
|
slynne
|
|
response 85 of 176:
|
Mar 14 00:16 UTC 2006 |
resp:75 The "you" in that statement was richard since it was his comment
I was addressing. It has nothing to do with giving away other people's
money. Creating a society where wealth tends to be distributed a bit
more evenly isnt any more artificial than creating a society where
wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. This country already has
some good laws designed to make things a little more egalitarian (labor
laws, anti-trust laws, etc).
There are a lot of good reasons for this, imho. Societies where most
people have enough money to have decent housing, food on the table, an
education, and a few luxuries tend to be more stable than societies were
the wealth is concentrated into the hands of a few and everyone else is
dirt poor. I was thinking about that while watching the movie The
Constant Gardiner which takes place in Kenya (which by African standards
is pretty stable). One of the characters asks another if his wife had
chosen to drive back from a town on the other side of the country and
his reply is, "I hope not, that is bandit country." Poverty breeds that
kind of crime. When you have a society with a very rich upper class, a
small middle class and a large underclass, crime becomes a big problem
for the rich and middle classes. And crime costs money, probably more
than something like a minimum wage. Because one way or another the
people with money will find themselves paying through the nose to deal
with it. Either with large taxes to pay for police protection and
prisons or by simply dealing with the costs of the crime, eg not being
able to drive home. Never mind the public health costs incurred when
people live in seriously poor conditions. TB breeds in poverty but the
rich are not immune.
FWIW, I think that capitalism and free markets are decent enough systems
but not if they are totally unregulated. Because if you have a free
market, it generally wont stay free for long as large corporations take
the natural path of concentrating wealth and trying to make themselves
monopolies. It isnt just the government that is a danger to free
markets.
|
twenex
|
|
response 86 of 176:
|
Mar 14 00:31 UTC 2006 |
I agree entirely.
|
richard
|
|
response 87 of 176:
|
Mar 14 00:48 UTC 2006 |
#73 cyklone, these are casual posts you and I and everyone else are
making. It is a mistake to dissect them as you would dissertations or
something. I'll admit to making word errors, I type fast and sometimes
I forget things I've posted in earlier posts. But who doesn't do that
in casual conversation? What annoys me is when suddenly you can't post
a thing without it being fact checked on google and wikipedia and
analyzed for word format and judged for intonation. These are CASUAL
posts.
Last week I made a casual post where I appeared to misstate jep's
position. Instead of accepting it as at most either a
misinterpretation (which by the way it was) or a simply an honest
misstatement, jep jumps down my throat, calls me liar repeatedly as if
I have committed some cardinal sin against him. I took it out against
him, because I don't like being attacked. But neither his reactions
nore mine were necessary.
These posts aren't becoming pleasant, not when they get overanalyzed
and oversubjected to righteous indigination over the littlest things.
|