If he loved his country so much he would do his dead level best to make its government smaller and get it out the way of the people. Instead he wants to make it more meddlesome in the lives of everyday Americans because that is precisely what socialism does. Look at ANY socialist regime on the face of the earth, past or present, and tell me it wasn’t squatting and shitting in people’s business all the time and at every opportunity.[/quote]
So, to love the US one has to have the same political views as you?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
But then I’m always sadly reminded that extremists are married to their Ideology Set and cannot be swayed by reason.
What is an extremist?
I would venture to say an extremist is committed to his principles. Gandhi was such a person. As long as the principles are morally just and consistent with each other then there is no problem. Far better to be an ethical extremist than a wavering pragmatist. The problem with most extremists is they are neither ethical nor consistent.
Pragmatists on the other hand do not have any principles to follow; and if they did would easily let them slip when it is practical for them to do so.[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
But then I’m always sadly reminded that extremists are married to their Ideology Set and cannot be swayed by reason.
What is an extremist?
I would venture to say an extremist is committed to his principles. Gandhi was such a person. As long as the principles are morally just and consistent with each other then there is no problem. Far better to be an ethical extremist than a wavering pragmatist. The problem with most extremists is they are neither ethical nor consistent.
Pragmatists on the oth hand do not have any principles to follow; and if they did would easily let them slip when it is practical for them to do so.[/quote]
I defined extremists as people who are so married to their ideology set, they can’t (won’t) reason. They simply repeat themselves.
I once had a conversation with a self-styled socialist and radical. He was ranting (intelligently, he’s a PhD) about the ills of capitalism. When I pointed out that gentle, socialistic nations are able to be so in large part because the US is doing much of the heavy lifting for the west militarily and because those egalitarian nations outsource their manufacturing to less gentle places…he agreed. Had he disagreed, I would have walked away, disgusted. It turned out to be an interesting and enlightening conversation for me and I hope for him. I didn’t destroy his belief in socialism, nor did he mine in capitalism, but we were able to discuss the shortcomings of both honestly.
Push, I get the feeling you worry that people somehow get over on you if you’re not obstinately married to your ideology. To me, that smacks of weakness.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
…(We can start other threads! This one was about “The Pledge”.
OK, back to the pledge. Again I DO see this mindset:
“We are your subjects.”
“You are our king.”
“Please fix everything, Your Highness.”
“He that hath done evil before You, GWB, is gone and You have been crowned.”
“We, your children, need Your benevolent hand to lift us from the mire.”
“If you criticize his plan or his actions you must be a racist.”
“If you don’t give him a chance (a chance to implement socialism) then you are a despicable hater.”
You watched a different video than I.
Yes, we did. Remember you were held over in that rehab center without the TVs on Inauguration Day and you couldn’t watch the festivities?
[/quote]
I see this mindset as well, baby. But this isn’t about the past eight years.
Really, what I don’t get is how this has suddenly become a problem. The cries weren’t as loud when it was Bush saying that if you criticize his plans that you are the enemy.
The far left is no different than the far right. You may not believe that to be the case, but it is. I never hoped for Bush to fail. His success means the success of the country.
Really, what I don’t get is how this has suddenly become a problem. The cries weren’t as loud when it was Bush saying that if you criticize his plans that you are the enemy.
The far left is no different than the far right. You may not believe that to be the case, but it is. I never hoped for Bush to fail. His success means the success of the country.
[/quote]
Exactly. Also, I don’t understand the lack of faith in America’s resiliency. It will take far more than one president, however charismatic he may be, to do the kind of damage some of the people on these boards seem to fear.
And try as I might, I simply cannot perceive the threat in Demi Moore’s determination to “serve” the president by smiling more.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I defined extremists as people who are so married to their ideology set, they can’t (won’t) reason. They simply repeat themselves.
[/quote]
What if it was reason that drove them to their ideology in the first place? In this regard it would be completely unreasonable to change his mind.
An extremist to you seems to be, and forgive me if I am putting words your mouth, someone who will not agree to disagree with you.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
I defined extremists as people who are so married to their ideology set, they can’t (won’t) reason. They simply repeat themselves.
What if it was reason that drove them to their ideology in the first place? In this regard it would be completely unreasonable to change his mind.
An extremist to you seems to be, and forgive me if I am putting words your mouth, someone who will not agree to disagree with you.[/quote]
“Whenever two good people argue over principles, they are both right.” -Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
I don’t suggest that someone should “change his mind,” I simply say that I find people who are obdurate tiresome. I don’t consider them strong adherents to principle, but rather unthinking toadies. People who cling mindlessly to their black and white ideology are extremists.
Terrorists and other such rely on these. Those posters who worry that Obama is amassing an army ought to wonder if the yardstick by which they measure such things is a little bent.
Was it you who brought up Gandhi? Gandhi said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.” I agree. People who refuse to acknowledge that the other side has valid concerns are not being honest. The other side ALWAYS has valid points when it comes to something as complex as policy.
Progress will not be made until people can stop shrieking at one another from opposite sides of their ideological divide.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Progress will not be made until people can stop shrieking at one another from opposite sides of their ideological divide.[/quote]
Well, the truth is that both diametrically opposing political parties are arguing over two sides of the same coin but they do not realize it. It does not help the matter when both groups do not argue from the perspective of the proper philosophical standpoint – that being nonaggression taken to its most “extreme” conclusion.
Imagine that the whole of society could become extremists in regard to a policy of nonaggression. I think you would see extremism in a different light.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Terrorists and other such rely on these. Those posters who worry that Obama is amassing an army ought to wonder if the yardstick by which they measure such things is a little bent.
Was it you who brought up Gandhi? Gandhi said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.” I agree. People who refuse to acknowledge that the other side has valid concerns are not being honest. The other side ALWAYS has valid points when it comes to something as complex as policy.
[/quote]
By that logic, your honesty would necessitate that you acknowledge the validity of the concerns of those posters who worry that Obama is building an army.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Terrorists and other such rely on these. Those posters who worry that Obama is amassing an army ought to wonder if the yardstick by which they measure such things is a little bent.
Was it you who brought up Gandhi? Gandhi said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.” I agree. People who refuse to acknowledge that the other side has valid concerns are not being honest. The other side ALWAYS has valid points when it comes to something as complex as policy.
By that logic, your honesty would necessitate that you acknowledge the validity of the concerns of those posters who worry that Obama is building an army.
;)[/quote]
I did! I said:
To Lifticus. And then I carefully considered it all.
Now I’m pondering nonaggression. I’m doing it slowly, though, because I’m all hopped up on cold medicine.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
“Whenever two good people argue over principles, they are both right.” -Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
I don’t suggest that someone should “change his mind,” I simply say that I find people who are obdurate tiresome. I don’t consider them strong adherents to principle, but rather unthinking toadies. People who cling mindlessly to their black and white ideology are extremists.
Terrorists and other such rely on these. Those posters who worry that Obama is amassing an army ought to wonder if the yardstick by which they measure such things is a little bent.
Was it you who brought up Gandhi? Gandhi said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.” I agree. People who refuse to acknowledge that the other side has valid concerns are not being honest. The other side ALWAYS has valid points when it comes to something as complex as policy.
Progress will not be made until people can stop shrieking at one another from opposite sides of their ideological divide.
I think I understand where you’re coming from. You alluded to it earlier when you “LOL”.
You have come to view yourself as a sophisticated intellectual who calmly listens to all sides of an argument and carefully and delicately sips on her tea while contemplating the vagaries of varied thought and opinion. Sometimes you fade left. Sometimes you fade right. Because of this you find yourself comfortably in the rocking chair of the middle where the truly reasonable people reside in a smugness that resembles that which you so despise in your so called “fringes”.[/quote]
It’s true enough that I fade from left to right, depending. I make no secret of my political inconsistency (party-wise). I hold some very conservative/libertarian views, though I rarely argue them here. In part because I have a contrary bent but even more because they’re already adequately represented. Only rarely do I take a center position. I do so now because as I said, I think it will take far more to upset the national apple cart than a single president. You won’t find any posts of mine slamming Bush (for whom I voted the first time but not the second) for the same reason. It’s not worth falling apart over. Too, this isn’t a thread about people’s politics, it’s a thread about the perception of threat in a video.
Arrogant? Yes, of course. How many people begin an opinion on a politics board with “I am an idiot and am ranting out of my ass, but…”? I believe that the polarity of American politics is gridlocking the entire nation to the detriment of everyone but the politicians. I believe in compromise. Isn’t it necessary for the maintenance of a productive business, of a happy home?
I don’t think I took a centrist position in the abortion debate, for example. My position is very clear: pro-abortion unless certain conditions are met. That’s not being centrist, that’s being interested in compromise so that no one has to endure their worst-case. Which is more important to you, saving the lives of the unborn or reducing social welfare? Because my policy priority is singular: reducing the number of babies born into horrific circumstances.
You insisted in that debate that you must have both conditions, low welfare and no abortions. The other side, the pro-choicers, want the opposite, abortions on demand AND liberal welfare policy. So we (nationally) go nowhere.
You may be right about a leftward drift. Considering it for a moment, you probably are. Is it an ideological shift or is it just a practical response to new conditions, such as the technological revolution? If the latter, then you may have outdated ideas.
Perhaps you need to update them. Perhaps good, old fashioned, red-blooded intellectualism isn’t working anymore. You should try the philosophically centrist pseudo kind.
Or, you could continue to represent for the Flat Earth Society. Either way. I’m totally accepting of your choices.
