posted
I think what this proves is less what Political Party OSC belongs to, and more the football mentality of American Politics. I am a full blown Republican and therefore hold on to the position of the most Republican of positions. That said, I think I see where OSC is coming from. He is a Democrat because of philosophical reasons he shares with them and not the current ideological positions.
I just find it funny that you have to hold "these particular positions" and vote for "these particular people" or you are OTHER. I am not fond of McCain for various reasons (I disagree with him on too many issues and dislike his personality), but there are many Republicans who believe that McCain is really a Democrat with the letter R. I actually believe that myself, but that doesn't mean he isn't a Republican. It just means he isn't MY kind of Republican.
In the end, I think that neither party likes a moderate. That goes for myself, but I am at least open to admitting such. Democrats have painted the Republican Party as extremists, but I think this year at least the Democratic Party has proven they are the extremists. Neither Obama or Hillary has done or said anything that has forced any serious disagreements other than perhaps tactics. On the other hand, besides Iraq (other than Paul), the Republican choices have actually been choices.
Perhaps OSC should become Republican. Not because he is a Conservative (although he is on some things) but because the Republicans have (if they like it or not) become the moderate party. At least for this year's elections. Imagine that!
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the end, I think that neither party likes a moderate.
Are you kidding? Neither party likes an extremist. If you think there are any extremists left in the race, you've clearly never actually met any real extremists. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like after Kerry lost, there was a lot of talk about the Democratic Party needing to search for its soul. I don't think it's the case that the Democratic Party is a marching band where you have to match every step. Obama keeps calling it a tent. I'm inclined to think Obama is the new soul of the party.
Card has skewed away from the party on a couple of recent issues: Same Sex Marriage and the Iraq War. But he's still viewed by the majority of Mormons as dangerously liberal. He's not pro-life (which I'd define as saying life begins at conception), I don't believe he favors capital punishment, he's not tax-phobic and doesn't feel that welfare and immigration are what's wrong with America.
P.S. I have no idea why Card would have voted for Reagan, but I read where he said he plugged his nose and went ahead -- because he didn't like Reagan. He may have found Reagan's policy on Israel to be superior, and Card doesn't believe in moderation when it comes to our commitment to Israel.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:P.S. I have no idea why Card would have voted for Reagan, but I read where he said he plugged his nose and went ahead -- because he didn't like Reagan. He may have found Reagan's policy on Israel to be superior, and Card doesn't believe in moderation when it comes to our commitment to Israel.
Some of us didn't vote for Regan. We wrote in Jimmy Carter. I have often ended up doing that in a presidential year.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the end, I think that neither party likes a moderate.
Are you kidding? Neither party likes an extremist. If you think there are any extremists left in the race, you've clearly never actually met any real extremists.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Card has skewed away from the party on a couple of recent issues: Same Sex Marriage and the Iraq War. But he's still viewed by the majority of Mormons as dangerously liberal. He's not pro-life (which I'd define as saying life begins at conception), I don't believe he favors capital punishment, he's not tax-phobic and doesn't feel that welfare and immigration are what's wrong with America.
Out of curiosity, where have you seen his views on pro-life and capital punishment? I don't recall reading his views on abortion one way or another, and seem to recall a discussion once or twice on stem-cell research, but I don't recall what his conclusion was.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this may shock some of you, but Mormons aren't a hive-mind (in spite of their predilection for bee and hive imagery.) Not all Mormons are into capital punishment, think taxes are evil, and want to kick out all the Mexicans. They actually do have individual opinions.
Okay, I'm teasing Pooka, of course. But I do agree with her in that OSC does seem to be considered unusually liberal among many LDS folks.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember this: When it comes to politics, nobody is correct. So don't try to guess what anyone thinks about anything. Even your definition of a Democrat or Republic, Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative. They're all wrong because everyone things differently about them. I can call myself a Democrat by my standards and it won't mean a thing because all you will associate that with is what stereotypes you believe about Democrats. If you say that you're open minded than you're even more wrong because the fact that you think you are open minded means you aren't. So just don't read into it.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: If everyone's wrong, then the guy who said "everyone is wrong" is also wrong -- hence paradox.
Let me say, if the subject is political, than everyone is wrong. But when talking about the nature of politics without actually discussing any political issues, then a person can be correct. The point was not to think you're right when it's politics because there is no right answer that you can completely believe.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: How do you pronounce ".:{121}:.Scooter[SGT] "?
The name Scooter was already taken so I threw on some tags from a gaming clan I am in, I did not know that I would not be able to change it after registering.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you just re-register? You've only got 6 posts so far. It must be a pain having to type all that in whenever you want to log on (if you don't check the box, of course.)
So is it a matter of degrees? I'm a Republican, and registered as such. But I only agree with the official Republican platform on about 60% of the issues an with Democrats... less than 5%.
For the reasons they give, I mean. I might support the democrat environmental policy; but not because I think we're saving the world for our children's children; I hate waste. I might support continued aggression in the Middle East, but not because I think the people want Democracy and we can give it to them; I think Islam must be crushed as the mortal enemy of civilization.
My point is this: at what point do I stop being a Republican? What if I start agreeing with the Democrats on more issues, and the balance starts to tip toward my voting for them more often than I do Republicans? What if I support more of their policies, but for reasons different from what they say? Suppose that the defining issue of whether one was a Dem or Rep was border security and immigration. Suppose I wanted a completely open border, but it was because I felt that the hyper-Catholic culture of the Mexicans would be a stronger bulwark against the coming world domination of the Muslims, and I'd rather the country went to Christians of any color? Would I still be a Democrat, or would I just be insane?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why don't you just re-register? You've only got 6 posts so far. It must be a pain having to type all that in whenever you want to log on (if you don't check the box, of course.)
I have taken your advice and now use this more... formal user instead of .:{121}:.Scooter[SGT]. I knew it to be a posibility, but was to lazy to do it until now.
quote:...So is it a matter of degrees? I'm a Republican, and registered as such. But I only agree with the official Republican platform on about 60% of the issues an with Democrats... less than 5%. ... My point is this: at what point do I stop being a Republican? What if I start agreeing with the Democrats on more issues, and the balance starts to tip toward my voting for them more often than I do Republicans?...[/QB]
I think that 60% agreement isn't enough. I'd say that if you're not at at least 75% agreement with any party than you should be independant.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, but what if some of the things I agree with the Republican Party are things I am fanatical about?
Like if I'm pro-life and do not believe there should be an exception made under any circumstances whatsoever, or if I think citizens should be allowed to carry any kind of weaponry wherever they desire, or that I think evolution should not be taught in schools, except maybe in history class?
(All those things are not far from the truth, by the way.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are really that "fanatical" than I think that your views are more than 60%. Perhaps you are just calculating it wrong. Each of their issues are equal but to you, some weigh more than others. So pro-life may add 20% and bearing arms may be another 20% while the price of tea in China adds is 1%. You are right on this point. I was wrong in stating that it's how many points you agree with to make a percentage. You have to see what holds higher importance and if that crosses the threshold of what it means to be a Republican, than you should be a Republican. But make sure you count how much you care about what you disagree with as well. If the things you care most about are in agreement with the party and the things that you disagree with don't really matter all that much to you, than you should be a Republican.
(It's very tempting to state my counter argument on each of those points, but I'll keep it at your second and third topics contradict each other. Unless you'd like me to evaluate.)
Posts: 54 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If those things are true, you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.
It's hard to figure out who "you" is when you don't address anyone, nore have a quote within the post to say whose message you're replying to.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I take it my second and third points are contradictory because of some survival-of-the-fittest concept as applied to who has the most guns or something... let's not get into this, at least not here.
I tell you what: look at some of my previous threads on the other side of the river (books, film, food, and culture) and see if you really want to talk about it. Just click on my name and go to recent posts, and then click on Topics started by.
Or just start a new thread (again, on the other side). I'm game to get it started in here; it's been a bit too quiet around her for my taste. Somebody stop him before he does, if any of you think it'll be too tortuous to handle again.Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, the same laws that protect you and allow you to vote despite any insane ideas you may have (such as preventing someone from voting) protect Resh too. Every American has the right to vote.
Resh, I have no interest in such a debate but I don't know what you're even talking about linking it to survival of the fittest, nor am I inclined to tell you what I meant.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Josh Cooper: Tom, the same laws that protect you and allow you to vote despite any insane ideas you may have (such as preventing someone from voting) protect Resh too. Every American has the right to vote.
Really? Which version of the Constitution did you find that in? It's not anywhere in mine.
Voting is a privilege and duty, yes -- but it's not a right.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Voting is a privilege and duty, yes -- but it's not a right.
Really?
Fourteenth Amendment: "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state..."
Fifteenth: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Nineteenth: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
Twenty-fourth: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
Twenty-sixth: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Josh Cooper: If you are really that "fanatical" than I think that your views are more than 60%.
If you really think the Republicans are all that fanatical I think that you need to revise your perception of the party platform. And I'm not speaking as a Republican here (albeit a moderate conservative).
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If those things are true, you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Do you understand the concept of democracy? You're saying that he shouldn't have a say in affairs that affect him just because he disagrees with you.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by Josh Cooper: [qb] If you are really that "fanatical" than I think that your views are more than 60%.
If you really think the Republicans are all that fanatical I think that you need to revise your perception of the party platform. And I'm not speaking as a Republican here (albeit a moderate conservative).
I was referring to Reshpeckobiggle as fanatical by his own words in the prior post. I certianly wouldn't call any party fanatical as a whole, but each has fanatical members.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're saying that he shouldn't have a say in affairs that affect him just because he disagrees with you.
Well, no. But since you're obviously taking this more seriously than I am, and certainly more seriously than Resh does, I'm not going to encourage that by elaborating. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm game to get it started in here; it's been a bit too quiet around her for my taste. Somebody stop him before he does, if any of you think it'll be too tortuous to handle again.
It has been slow around here lately, hasn't it? If you're game to discuss this subject again, why not just go back to one of the myriad threads in which you've dropped the conversational ball on the topic and pick up from where you left off?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think card's entitled to his definition of what a 'democrat' actually is, despite the horrible changes the democratic party has gone under the last hundred years or so: making them the exact opposite of what they SHOULD be or started to be. honestly, this country would do much better being more conservative than what i call 'progressivly stupid' which is all in the name of 'progress'.... which is what i believe the democrats have been pushing lately... of course, the republicans aren't that much better...
Posts: 42 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:honestly, this country would do much better being more conservative than what i call 'progressivly stupid' which is all in the name of 'progress
I agree that the country would be better off being more conservative than stupid.
By the way, are the bad grammar, lack of punctuation, and hilarious misspellings in your post meant to be points of irony?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I always liked about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by pointing out the grammatical flaws in his post is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: One thing I always liked about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by pointing out the grammatical flaws in his post is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.
It's a good thing that TB wasn't 'discrediting someone by pointing out the grammatical flaws in his post'
but if that had been the case, you might have had something going there.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, I was trying to point out that being conservative and being stupid were not the only two options on America's dinner plate -- it's not a one or the other proposition, but I chose a weird word-flow, or something.
The hilarious misspellings thing was a joke, though now when I read it it sounds pretty harsh, but I'm glad it wasn't taken badly.
There was no attempt on my part to discredit the other poster. He seems a fine fellow. But ellipse after ellipse after ellipse, man. Punctuate, people, punctuate.
Well, I was trying to point out that being conservative and being stupid were not the only two options on America's dinner plate -- it's not a one or the other proposition, but I chose a weird word-flow, or something.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: One thing I always liked about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by pointing out the grammatical flaws in his post is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.
You must not frequent too many other boards. Grammar and the such weight FAR more on a persons credibility here than elsewhere. People here are just less boisterous about it.
It would be like going into congress and giving a speech in Ebonics/redneck/valley girl/1337 speak, pick your slang. Not many people would mention it, but EVERYONE would notice, and you would lose a LOT of points because of it.
The truth is, you don't NEED to point it out here, but if you did, you would be in the majority, thought-wise.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I frequent enough to know the people here are intelligent enough that for the most part everyone looks past it to the meat of the argument.
They "weight" more here? And brother, that last sentence... drop a comma or two, would ya? You must be an idiot with nothing important to say.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I have always like about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by mischaracterizing their statements and intentions and then arguing with the argument you've made up instead of what they've actually said and ignoring clarifications and statements of good will on the part of the individual against whom you are sort of arguing is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.
(Say that three times fast.)
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For any clarification on my part, I totally understood TL's comment as a joke. Or, at least, that's how I took it. I don't need my arteries to harden by taking on-line discussions too seriously anyway. :-) Besides, I was too lazy to really type things very accurately anyway, so nyeah! :-P
Posts: 42 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: One thing I have always like about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by mischaracterizing their statements and intentions and then arguing with the argument you've made up instead of what they've actually said and ignoring clarifications and statements of good will on the part of the individual against whom you are sort of arguing is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.
(Say that three times fast.)
Yeah no kidding.
On the bright side, it IS generally viewed as cheap and ineffective, or at least, there is always someone around to recognize it for what it is and cry foul. The problem is that there's always at least one person who'll start it in the first place.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: One thing I have always like about this place is that the common internet practice of discrediting someone by mischaracterizing their statements and intentions and then arguing with the argument you've made up instead of what they've actually said and ignoring clarifications and statements of good will on the part of the individual against whom you are sort of arguing is generally viewed as cheap and ineffective.
(Say that three times fast.)
That are so funnier then earlier wen i thout the same thing. People seem to argue what they think you are likely to have said instead of what you actually said. (This is usually whatever they can most easily argue against). It just happened to me at work today. Than it inspired a great line of thought that I eventually got on paper and may post in the future. I just think that's erie that you posted it.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
