|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 57 of 176:
| 
Mar 12 21:03 UTC 2006 |
Re #55: The most obvious would be that concentrating wealth and power in the
hands of a small elite is against the best interests of the country. The
other would be that the true measure of a society is how well it treats the
least fortunate and least powerful of its members.
|
jep
|
|
response 58 of 176:
|
Mar 12 21:14 UTC 2006 |
Cyklone, I don't think those of us who tend to the conservative side
think Richard is a representative liberal. I certainly don't. He does
present many simplistic arguments with easy holes which are easy to
prove wrong.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 59 of 176:
|
Mar 12 21:18 UTC 2006 |
I guess I'm glad to hear that. However, I've run into enough like him in A2,
and have heard other conservatives caricaturing his "type" enough times to
believe that he and his ilk do cause incredible harm to the cause of
liberalism.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 60 of 176:
|
Mar 12 21:41 UTC 2006 |
Re #57: I'm not sure those positions are unique to the liberal cause
because conservatives also cite them in regards to their arguments. Take
welfare for example. Some conservatives draw the conclusion that
democrats seek to concentrate wealth and power by forming the welfare
system in such a way that it makes it very difficult to become
independant of it.
I think liberals and conservatives have a lot more in common than they
think, and it is the extremists on both sides that are trying to drive a
wedge inbetween.
|
jep
|
|
response 61 of 176:
|
Mar 12 22:40 UTC 2006 |
Well, nharmon, it's politics. The whole *point* is to have differences
and either resolve them or get as much of your own way as you can. The
parts we all agree on are by definition non-political.
It doesn't mean "their" side is inherently bad, or that "our" side is
better (whichever side you happen to be on). Some of the differences
are crucially important. But the great part is that we manage to come
to some sort of decision -- on everything -- without being at war with
one another.
|
scholar
|
|
response 62 of 176:
|
Mar 12 23:00 UTC 2006 |
Foolish.
|
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.
|