Lil sump'm for the conservatives here.

[nightandthecity]

don't know about that bebop, I'm getting the definite impression that there's more liberals on this site actually, but like you they came here to talk clothes.

I keep getting tempted to jump into the political stuff myself, but "life's too short"......"time and place for everything" etc etc.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Bebop, I hear ya but the header does say from adventure to politics. I for one really like a good political debate. The strength in our political system has always been balance as it has been in our society as a whole. That means conservative, liberal, Christian and Jew. I think intelligent people should be able to discuss any issue without turning it personal. I for one wouldn't want an all liberal, all conservative or all anything for that matter country or forum. There was a time in Germany not to long ago where there was a dream of master race and because of those beliefs we (America) benefited from some of the greatest minds in Europe coming here to escape from those ideals. Our strength as a country has always been in our diversity and it always will be our strength. Red state, blue state, north, south we are stronger because of our differences. Here too. :cheers1:

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Sarcastically speaking: I love how people heap all the blame and hatred towards George W. Bush. It must make things pretty easy when you can blame all the problems of the world on one man.

Tsunami strikes the coastal regions of the Indian Ocean: Some how it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Bush?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s fault.

Hurricanes strike Louisiana and flood the levies in New Orleans collapse in some areas: Well, then it MUST be a racist plot against poor blacks in the area by Halliburton and Bush.

Earthquake strikes in Pakistan: It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s all part of a Plot created by the vast Right Wing Conspiracy against poor Muslims.

Someone stubs their toe while fumbling around in the dark, somehow, Dam?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢n it, it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Bush?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s fault!

It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s overly simplistic to think that somehow, overnight, everything became Bush?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s fault. The problems that we have now may or may not have been compounded by Bush, but they didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t all start while he was in office. Perfect example is the recession, which started in March of 2000, having nothing to do Dubya who was still the Governor of Texas and campaigning for the Oval Office.

You have problems paying around $3 for gas? We have no new refineries in The United States, we have no new drilling here or off the coast?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ and when looking for alliterative means of generating energy like Windmills off the coast of Nantucket or Martha?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Vineyard: Massachusetts Senators Kerry and Kennedy were AGAINST them because it would ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsoil their view?¢‚Ǩ? from their vacation homes. If a Republican said something so insipid, Democrats would call for Impeachment.

I also think it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s brilliant (again, sarcastically speaking) that the same people who whine and moan about how ?¢‚Ǩ?ìawful?¢‚Ǩ? the Republicans are in true denial that there own party is above nonsense and conspiracy. If Democrats pull sleazy tricks like handing over Missile technology to the Chinese or Nuclear Reactors to North Korea, well, they?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re justified in doing so.

I also think the democrats have some real problems with rubber stamping any and all laws that will effect society and gush with pride about how ?¢‚Ǩ?ìProgressive?¢‚Ǩ? and ?¢‚Ǩ?ìForward Thinking?¢‚Ǩ? they are while at the same time will bash anyone for simply asking: ?¢‚Ǩ?ìWhat are the long term implications??¢‚Ǩ? By simply asking what could the long-term consequences be in passing ?¢‚Ǩ?ìLaw X,?¢‚Ǩ? I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve been labeled a backward thinking bigot. The Children of The Age Of Aquarius have serious problems when it comes to ?¢‚Ǩ?ìCelebrating Diversity?¢‚Ǩ? when they encounter people who aren?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t as ?¢‚Ǩ?ìProgressive?¢‚Ǩ? as they are, or have diverse leanings in a conservative direction?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ then they simply act like children.

I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m really getting sick and tired of the retarded mindset from partisans on both sides who believe that if only everyone thought and voted JUST like they did, then the world would be a better place. I would go on, but I think I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve heaped enough gas on the fire Froggy started.

 

[Bebop]

I find it fascinating how the extreme left and the extreme right are so extremly wrong so often. I can always hear alot of anger and pain that has little to do with politics. Believing that there is no way possible that there could ever be a conspiricy from the right or the left is simply as naive as thinking that handing power to the North Koreans is ok. I think putting a lable on yourself like consevative or liberal is a mistake. It says to me that you think along party lines and as we know, being one sided on everything one political party does is not using your own brain. I would imagine you wouldn't want to be viewed as a schill (spelling) for your party. Look at Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage Bill Mahr or Al Franken. I know that they are just entertainers at best but some people take these guys seriously. How can anyone possibly take what they say seriously? They are puppets for the right and the left. They would never say anything against their saintly Republicans or Democrats. When someone starts quoting one of these quacks, I know they are going to be difficult to put up with for long.

 

[nightandthecity]

Myself, I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t think the idea of a simple line running between ?¢‚Ǩ?ìright?¢‚Ǩ? and ?¢‚Ǩ?ìleft?¢‚Ǩ? does justice to the complexity of real people?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s political opinions or to the variety of political movements and philosophies actually out there. Nor do I think the slightly more sophisticated view that politics is a circle with right and left meeting at the extremes is much better. The closest I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve ever come to an adequate geometrical metaphor was put forward by a friend, who described politics as a square. You have capitalism v collectivism facing (economic life) and individualism v totalitarianism facing (the rest of life). Anarchism thus fits into the corner where collectivism and individualism meet, Communism into the corner where totalitarianism and collectivism meet, Fascism into the corner where capitalism and totalitarianism meet, Libertarianism into the corner where capitalism and individualism meet and everything else fits in somewhere along the lines between these extremes. Its very neat, it actually works for political philosophies, though not necessarily for the complexity inside individual heads......

 

[jamespowers]

Equating a philosophy of thinking about issues with a political party is not the correct way of viewing things. That would mean there is no such thing as a liberal Republican or a Conservative Democrat. I have met plenty of both so that makes no sense. Even further down the line we look at the Libertarian party. Is that where all the liberals go? NO!
There are conservatives who are Libertarian party members, Republican party members and Democrat party members. As there are liberals who are Democrats, Peace and Freedom, Green, Libertarian, American Communist Party and a few others I can't remember now.
There is first the ideology then the individual looks at where he wants to go that most closely agrees with him/her. Believe it or not, there are disagreements within partys as well as there are disagreements within ideologies. If you want to see them go to your local Central Comittee meeting for one of the above parties. They are probably close enough for you to see first hand. Every county in the US has them.

Regards to all,

J

 

[nightandthecity]

I was talking about political philosophies. Political parties are different because they are coalitions, often of quite divergent groups

 

[shamus]

when you get right down to the nuts an bolts of any issue... could the question that either side ask (and this is the key difference between each view point) is...

"How does this help me?"

or

"How does this help others?"

 

[jamespowers]

when you get right down to the nuts an bolts of any issue... could the question that either side ask (and this is the key difference between each view point) is...

"How does this help me?"

or

"How does this help others?"

Or how does this help others along with me?

Regards to all,

J

 

[Renderking Fisk]

The problem with American Politics right now has everything to do with what people have aready have written around, but not really said it...

There's a lot of yelling, screaming and name calling... but there isn't much debate. There's a lot of showmanship and infotainment from the news media outlet with a lot of soundbites with name calling with out a lot of results.

... And the results I'm seeing aren't solving the problems with out causing new ones.

 

[Bebop]

Fisk, I agree. I think you have summed up politics in general and I think you summed up this post.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Vote For Pedro!

I think we need to elect more non-politicians.

The Republicans and the Democrats have become/always been an Old Boys Club. The only people that get anywhere in politics are people with connections and/or money. But sadly, I don't think change will happen in the near future. Third parties have no chance. I would vote Libertarian or Constitutionalist if they ever stood a chance in Hello Operator...

 

[Senator Jack]

I think we need to elect more non-politicians.

That's why I need your vote!

Kidding aside, (or am I?) I believe the greatest problem we face is that we really don't have enough THINKERS in office - men (yeah, yeah, AND women) of reason. Whenever I hear today's politicians say 'our forefathers this and or forefathers that' I have to laugh because they don't seem to know thing one about our forefathers. Our forefathers were brilliant men who came up with an out of the box way to run a country. Could any of the baboons we have down in Washington today come up with the Constitution? Are any of them combination architects/lawyers/philosophers/scientists/rabblerousers? Really, I wouldn't trust any of them to run a garbage scow much less a country. We don't need plutocratic businessmen. We don't need liberals. We need THINKERS. And not pseudo-Al Gore -type -thinkers who complain about our drying up resources and then open the doors for MORE immigration, but thinkers that see the correlation between things like resources and population growth.

The one man I believed in in the last twenty years was John McCain. From the first time I heard him speak, I said, "Now that's a smart motherf***er". But then he sold out too. If he were as honorable as the forefathers he would have broke party to denounce the candidate. Perhaps he's just waiting for his turn again.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Everything wrong with Washington can be summed up with One word: Lawyers.

I wish it were possible to elect more historians, builders, and stay at home parents to office. What we have now is a vast collection of Leagle Beagles with delusions of grandure and asperations for higher office and easier access to our wallets.

The folks we have now prove the adage that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. For once I wish someone with a pair of stones would crack open a history book and say: "Let me read to you something that happened way back when, to a time when someone else passed a similar law..."

 

[Brad Bowers]

Everything wrong with Washington can be summed up with One word: Lawyers.

Or a similar word, perhaps a synonym: Lobbyists.

Brad

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Or a similar word, perhaps a synonym: Lobbyists.

Brad

You're right... The Problem with Washington can be summed up with two words: "Lawyers" and "Lobbyists."

I stand corrected.

 

[Panamabob]

In Ecuador they can't tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

 

[The Wingnut]

I have to disagree...while coming close to the heart of the matter, lawyers and lobbyists are only a symptom, and not the cause, of what is truly wrong with the nation's current sway away from the original democratic republic that it was meant to be. Lobbying and lawyers have their uses, although these days it's more abuse than use.

The true problem lies in the loss of the ideal of serving the people and preservation of individual liberty, and more in the increasing serving of self that our civil servants embrace, and to an almost equal extent, the belief that the seat of power is in the halls of federal government and not the ballot box. Few if any people in public office hold that office because they were in their hearts driven to serve others. The attraction of public office is recognition and power. We treat our elected officials like celebrities or royalty despite the original drive away from such an exalted regard.

This has been a problem since the days of the founding fathers. Federalist and anti-federalist clashes marred the country's formative years, and were it not for the anti-federalists, we would not have the bill of rights. Men very much pursued their own ideals and goals for the new nation, sometimes coming to blows or even killing each other(Hamilton and Burr, anyone? A federalist versus an anti-federalist). We have pulled further and further away from the idea that we are Californians, New Yorkers, and Kansans and more toward being Americans. We are less the United States of America and more the Federal Republic of America. We see the president as having an almost godlike power with regard to the country's condition and direction.

 

[jamespowers]

I have to disagree...while coming close to the heart of the matter, lawyers and lobbyists are only a symptom, and not the cause, of what is truly wrong with the nation's current sway away from the original democratic republic that it was meant to be. Lobbying and lawyers have their uses, although these days it's more abuse than use.

The true problem lies in the loss of the ideal of serving the people and preservation of individual liberty, and more in the increasing serving of self that our civil servants embrace, and to an almost equal extent, the belief that the seat of power is in the halls of federal government and not the ballot box. Few if any people in public office hold that office because they were in their hearts driven to serve others. The attraction of public office is recognition and power. We treat our elected officials like celebrities or royalty despite the original drive away from such an exalted regard.

This has been a problem since the days of the founding fathers. Federalist and anti-federalist clashes marred the country's formative years, and were it not for the anti-federalists, we would not have the bill of rights. Men very much pursued their own ideals and goals for the new nation, sometimes coming to blows or even killing each other(Hamilton and Burr, anyone? A federalist versus an anti-federalist). We have pulled further and further away from the idea that we are Californians, New Yorkers, and Kansans and more toward being Americans. We are less the United States of America and more the Federal Republic of America. We see the president as having an almost godlike power with regard to the country's condition and direction.

Here here! Well said.

Regards to all,

J (Brutus, anti-federalist, http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus.txt )

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Let's drill for oil in Utah and Alaska and really screw over the Arabs.