I think the questions you asked are aside from the simple point I was making.
Yes but your simple point cannot be applied to a complex situation. I think far too often, people tend to way oversimplify the political process and that of running our country. Everyone looks at the president as the head of our country, He is and he isn’t. The supreme court has just as much power as the president, and can rule any action the president may take as unconstitutional… etc. The guy has the absolute hardest and most intimidating job that will ever exist. He will be viewed as at the very least, partly responsible for anything bad that happens in the world. Why? because he is viewed by a very many people to be the leader of the free world.
This is good and bad. In a time of peace, everyone loves the president. Even though he really has nothing to do with much of the reasons for the peace. In times of turmoil, the president is often blamed REGARDLESS of fault, for all the bad stuff going on. People are emotional beings and need someone to blame, someone has to be tarred and feathered. Liberals these days are of the mindset that our nation is so advanced and great that we should be able to mentally manipulate other nations and thier indiginous people so that they love us instead of hate us. While I agree this would be a good thing, it is irresponsible and not possible. The kid in the bar who wants to get in a fight will get in a fight regardless if you go up to him and sweet talk him and try to make him feel good and happy. He will in all actuallity probably want to kick your ass instead now because you annoyed him.
Liberals are annoying to me, they annoy other people. Liberals think they are above everyone else. Like I said before, my friend called me stupid about 15 times in a 20 minute argument over politics. Why do you think your ideas are the only right ideas? I Can’t understand how the liberal mantra is how everyone is so equal and then they go around saying how this group needs help, that group needs more benefits, and they are the only ones smart enough to see the whole picture. It is actually the conservatives who practice what they preech. The believe everyone is equal and they don’t go around parading it like they are the only group that thinks that. Instead they try to keep government out of our lives as much as possible. They say, you are all equal so go be who you want to be and good luck. If you succeed it’s on your head, if you fail, it’s your fault. Personal responsibility is one of the greatest gifts one can recieve and the liberals would take it away from all of us. They would have a country where it is impossible to fail. What the hell would anyone learn that way. Are we here to just exist? to just go through life as a bottom feeder, depending on whatever comes from upstream? Or are we here to carve our own paths? To learn how to push ourselves? to learn how to fight for ourselves? To be sharks in the sea of guppies. My biggest problem with almost any liberal stance is that it boils down to them wanting to control my life! WTF? I don’t need your control. They have even gotten so good at it as to get you to think that the conservative veiwpoint is the controlling one. Charlie Rangel brought a bill to congress to reinstate the draft for gods sake! Our military is healthy and strong, People are still eager to serve! So what are his motives? He wishes to use the draft to control congress and our country. The only reason he wants it is so that when we have to go into combat public support will be way too low. That is controlling by fear!
Sorry for the ultra long liberal rant.
I am ok with anyone haveing an opposing view unless that view is that thier view is the only right one.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
Liberals are annoying to me, they annoy other people. Liberals think they are above everyone else.
Wow! I have to agree with on that one Vegita. Some of them act as if they cornered the market on knowledge.
This is a gem. Respect due to brutal force isn’t really respect now is it? I mean, you turn your back and find you have a knife at your throat. Some long term strategy.
How about showing less interest in their lands and resources? Pretty simple really. How about finding ways to stop the conversion from innocent Arabic to Islamofacist?
Being big and strong, as a country or as a person, does not make you right and it does not truly make you safe either. I’m not saying it is useless either, but force can only do so much.
Zeb,
Liberals can’t think they are that superior. They won’t accept a simple bet. They can’t step up and accept THE CHALLENGE.
That’s you Sump-Pump-Lump/Brother Elk/tme/danh
November 2nd is near!!!
JeffR
Veg,
I think something is lost in the political climate. The things you write about, obviously heartfelt, are not necessarily the left and right issues you make them out to be.
In particular, lets look at the chart your own course make your own path and take risks concept.
I don’t think liberals would ever want to or be able to eliminate this. At the same time, if someone could give you tools that would let you succeed, you could always ignore them. For example, steroids and prohormones are tools that can be used to achieve physique goals.
Having support systems doesn’t mean that you cannot fail. For example, for the fitness minded T-nation is one great big support system. It doesn’t remove our ability to give up, to fail to meet goals or to be unmotivated. However, if we fail, it is there to offer advice, help us figure out why and to make sure we try again.
I think the political climate makes things too black and white. You can have support systems and you can have tools or roadmaps made available without removing the ability of those who work hard to benefit from hard work.
Assuming that liberals want to force everyone to be equal regardless of ability and motivation is simply a politically motivated myth. I’d never vote for that. However, I think most people would help another if it didn’t harm themselves.
The key is to find ways to make the world a better place for those that want to take advantage of some type of protection when taking risks while not getting in the way of those who don’t.
I’m not talking about any particular policies or the ability of any level of government to actually achieve this, but just at the conceptual level. However, there are usually both good solutions and bad solutions once a proper course of action is decided upon.
Finally, and this is a bit of a political zinger, but you live in a democracy. If the majority of people would prefer what you would not, then you are out of luck. It’s funny how many poeple think that living in a democracy means that they will actually get things the way they want them.
I’d suggest your democracy is fighting itself. People are looking for ways to impose their views, their right or left bias, thinking they are the ones that are correct, instead of simply letting the will of the majority set the direction. Think about that one.
Why else would we have such hysteria and craziness during elections? People are not willing to have their favorite issue go the wrong way. Many will do whatever they can to have their will imposed even if the majority disagrees. This is a problem and I wonder if it is the cause or a symptom of the divisiveness in America these days.
vroom:
It’s not that liberals will be able to eliminate the “chart your own way path” that the conservatives embrace. The problem is that the liberals, if in power, are able to slow down and throw road blocks in the path of those who want to “chart their own path.”
Higher taxes, more government regulation etc. Does not help a small business get started, or thrive after they have started.
Let’s put it this way: Liberals are more apt to slow down or get in the way of progress.
One more point I want to address: In a free society people are allowed to promote their own views. Whether it’s a crazy movie called “Fairenheit 9-11”, or a documentary called “stolen Honor”
It’s all done to influence the electorate. To get strangers to think differently. Sometimes it’s quite successful, other times not so much. The important thing is that we in America are able to pursue those types of activities, and I am very proud of that fact.
This is not a “problem” as you state, but part of the solution!
Bush up by 6pts. as reported in the Newsweek Poll.
If you go to Drudge, Bush is up by 3pt.s if you average all of the major polls together.
[quote]vroom wrote:
This is a gem. Respect due to brutal force isn’t really respect now is it? I mean, you turn your back and find you have a knife at your throat. Some long term strategy. [/quote]
It’s working for Israel - there was a peice in the WSJ that spoke on this very subject. The half-assed way we’ve gone about trying to ‘win the peace’ is not a solution - I think it makes the problem worse. Then again, maybe I misused the word respect - maybe I should have said that we would make them so scared of our force that they would sit down and shut up.
Do you drive a car, vroom? Do you buy gas to put in your car? How do you heat your home? Have any plastics laying around? Do any of your clothes contain a poly-ester blend? Then drop the hypocrisy.
We are actually working for YOUR interests over there as well. You may not like it, and it might need to be changed, but for right now petroleum is the only game in town - and that makes them a very large U.S. interest.
Free and open elections - as were held in Afghanistan, and soon to be held in Iraq - is the surest way to give the arabic world a sense of their own inalienable freedoms. Until then - brutal force on those that wish us harm will keep us safe.
Gee Zeb, freedom of speech huh? Wow, go figure! I’m not talking about the abillity of people to express themselves when I’m talking about the steps being taken.
I’m talking about organized deceipt and deception. I guess you could stuff that under the blanket of free speech too. However, I’m not sure the two make good bed fellows.
In any case, I’m not talking about removal of free speech you loony. I rather enjoy it myself (even though I don’t live in the USA myself – others have the concept too you know).
Well, there is a tradeoff. I don’t like it either. However, neither would I like it if progress poisoned my water, killed all the fish in my lakes and otherwise harmed the populace. Oops, too late for some of us.
I’m afraid only the government has the will and authority to stand up to big business in this regard. Unfortunately, the government regulations for big business get extremely complex and also hamper small businesses.
Do I have the answer for it? No. Is it a liberal problem? I don’t think so. I’d be happy if liberal or conservative governments would realistically steward resources while not unduly hampering economic productivity. Just don’t paint it too black and white.
Good lord, I hope my clothes aren’t polyester! Anyhow, on a more rational note, spending $200 billion dollars on technology to reduce reliance on oil would probably have been a better way to spend the funds earmarked for the conflict in Iraq.
No, it won’t happen overnight, but the sooner we get serious about it, the sooner we can develop technology that allows alternatives to compete cost effectively with the oil based economy of today.
The cost of oil is not simply what you pay at the pump. Due to past practices of enforcing local interests worldwide, we also pay the cost of terrorism and increased security. Those are large costs.
Also, no, switching to alternatives over time is not that likely to undo all the damage and hatred already built up. I guess we needed our previous leaders to look a little further ahead than they did.
Don’t be so afraid to imagine that things could be different than they are today…
vroom:
People “impose their views” with free speech. Were you suggesting that people were imposing their views with a gun?
Hedo:
You can keep track of all the polls here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html
Just remember two things:
-
National polls are next to meaningless given the electoral college;
-
Even given that, the polls are pretty bad for measuring anything other than broad movements.
That said, looks like Bush has pretty well stopped the K/E momentum with his performance in the 2nd and 3rd debates, along with Cheney’s debate performance. Of course, Bush created that momentum with his bombing of the first debate. People just don’t like Kerry.
Zeb,
I don’t believe a simple “point of view” can be imposed via speech. It can be expressed and rejected, acted upon or ignored.
However, there are types of speach, such as threats, misrepresentation or fraud that can be used to produce or perhaps control an outcome.
If that outcome is what one group wants and not what another group wants, then something more than expression of opinion is occuring.
For example, if I want to have a movie theatre to myself, I could proclaim “FIRE” and watch the place empty out. If I didn’t want to go to jail, I could perhaps anonymously cause a taped message to do this instead of having to do it myself.
I would not have imposed my “point of view” on anyone, but I would have caused an action. In fact, most people see this as a reasonable limitation on free speech.
In the political arena, with all the mistruths and insinuations, we have people wildly proclaiming “FIRE” about the candidates, parties and policies at all times.
I’m asking, not suggesting that it either is or is not appropriate, but should lies and misrepresentations be a protected form of free speech? Is it necessary for some purpose? Can it be detected and qualified in a reliable way? How come the populace doesn’t demand the whole truth?
These are simply interesting questions. Perhaps a bit hypothetical for most people, but definately related to the quality of the political process currently taking place.
Also interesting, and dangerous, is the outcome when society as a whole would prefer lies to the truth. Where would this lead? How far along the path are we?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The only way to deal with the terrorist issue is from a position of strength. Not the kind of strength we are showing now, but one far more brutal. So brutal that would-be terrorists actually stop and wonder if their actions are worth the hell the U.S. will reign down on them.
[/quote]
Careful rainjack! You’re gonna scare the sheep! 
vroom:
I see, but I don’t think it’s as big a deal as you do I guess.
American politics has always been about rancorous debate, which always bordered on the fraudulent (shrug).
What’s the worst thing that Kerry has said about Bush, or vice versa?
How in the world do you limit that?
BB:
“People just don’t like Kerry.” Yea…why is that? You would think that the democrats would have learned their lesson about fielding a candidate who appears to be emotionless four years ago with Al Gore. Here they are again four years later with someone who has even less personality than ole’ Al.
They also did that in 1988 against the first George Bush. Remember Dukakis? He got clobbered! He was a liberal politician from the state of Massachusetts who appeared as emotionless…oh my
Vroom brother…“I don’t think liberals would ever want to or be able to eliminate this. At the same time, if someone could give you tools that would let you succeed, you could always ignore them. For example, steroids and prohormones are tools that can be used to achieve physique goals.”
A) you don’t THINK so, I do.
B) The tools are already IN place to be able to succeed. The system does need to be changed, it needs to encourace people to go out and succeed not wait for the government to help them. We need informational programs in place to educate people.
I just had a conversation with my uncle today. He started a small business a year ago. He was never told anything regarding the regulations involved or how to file certain things, what requirements he was supposed to fulfill. He said this to me “why don’t they give you a handbook that gives you some instructions and outline of general rules.” How easy would it be to implement something like this? But everyone is looking to flip the whole system upside down to fix it. We just need to tweak it here and there and make small incremental improvements and our country will soar! I am of the belief that things are going well here, of course they could be better. But lets just start hammering out the small things. If given the right knowledge I could make that handbook in probably a couple days. They could then be printed at a very low cost and systematically passes out to everyone who signs up for a DBA, a s-corp a c-corp etc… This would put the onus on them, they now have the material in hand of what the government requires of them. Instead right now it’s up to them to find these thing on thier own. Most people get the info word of mouth from another business owner who may or may not have it right. There are millions of Little things we can do that would take very little time, effort and resources that would make a 100000% difference in everyday peoples life. This is where we need to focus our political energy.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
To get back to the original point of the thread: I have not seen Kerry’s numbers any better relative to women. In fact, I was reading one particular piece that stated his gay comment in the third debate may very well lose him more of the womens vote. Seems women are tuned into this and they didn’t like that sort of attack. Time will tell…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
To get back to the original point of the thread: I have not seen Kerry’s numbers any better relative to women. In fact, I was reading one particular piece that stated his gay comment in the third debate may very well lose him more of the womens vote. Seems women are tuned into this and they didn’t like that sort of attack. Time will tell…[/quote]
Zeb:
As I said on the other thread, I think his comment will cost him parental votes – and I think he is losing more “Mom” votes than anything.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
To get back to the original point of the thread: I have not seen Kerry’s numbers any better relative to women. In fact, I was reading one particular piece that stated his gay comment in the third debate may very well lose him more of the womens vote. Seems women are tuned into this and they didn’t like that sort of attack. Time will tell…[/quote]
Sorry ZEB, I guess he ain’t in trouble no more:
Polls Show Gains for Kerry Among Women in Electorate
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - Senator John Kerry appears to have reversed his slide among women who are voters and has taken a lead over President Bush in this crucial category, new polls show.
In early September, Mr. Bush led Mr. Kerry among women, 48 percent to 43 percent in the CBS News poll. As of Sunday, in The New York Times/CBS News poll, Mr. Kerry was leading among women who are registered voters, 50 percent to 40 percent. Other polls show Mr. Kerry with a smaller lead among women, but a lead nonetheless.
The Times/CBS poll showed Mr. Kerry solidifying an already strong lead among single women. It showed him pulling ahead of Mr. Bush among women over 50, though not by much, after being behind.
One of the few categories of women in which Mr. Bush leads Mr. Kerry is among those who are married, who tend to vote Republican. But Mr. Kerry has shrunk the gap. As of Sept. 6, Mr. Bush had an edge of 27 percentage points over Mr. Kerry among married women; as of Sunday the gap had shrunk to 7 points.