posted
Given that you want to see 90% of abortion done away with, and given that you want 'conservative' SC justices appointed, what else would you like to see done in the country and your state, now that you, in theory, have a mandate?
p.s. I appreciate the Republican community of Hatrack not being complete shits about their new majority and keeping the bs 'the Democratic party is a bunch of extremists!' crud to a bare minimum.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By preservation, you mean removal of the sunset clauses in the PA so that all that stuff is permanent?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a thank you after skimming the threads here. Not pre-emptive.
And it's not another board, it's just a bad day for Democrats across the country, as should be obvious. The flip side of most of the Repubs here being nice people and not gloating is that because most of the Dems on the boards are pretty nice people, we are not crying on the boards. But, believe me, many of us are depressed about current events. Please, don't aske me to elaborate because I, for one, don't want to talk about the political reality for the next two years because I'm pretty sure I will just lash out at people if I try and talk about it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would actually be very interested in what you, Dagonee, hope and expect out of a second term Bush administration .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well no, I was more concerned that the USSC might strike down portions. It would be absurd to make legislation designed for a limited era permanent.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Only a fool would give up his liberties for the sake of security."
I'm fairly sure I just misquoted Jefferson, but you get the idea...
The Partiot Act may be for our own good, but it gives the governement more control than I care to give up. But then again, I have been accused of being an anarchist on more than one occasion.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you name some way that you've been personally harmed by the Patriot Act? I can name terrorists that have only been arrested because of it.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stryker, It was Franklin and the quote is more like "He who would sacrifice essential liberty for the sake of a little temporary safety deserves neither."
There is a Jefferson quote that I think is pretty jazzy "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the great things about the Patriot Act is that it's almost impossible to know whether you or anyone else has been harmed by it, because that information is not made available.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are two reasons that you are not hearing much gloating from Republicans here at Hatrack. The first and most important is that they don't feel comfortable posting at this Forum. As such, they just skip saying much if anything because the hatred and vindictiveness of the Liberal Democratic uber-majority is not worth a response.
The second reason is more than hinted at in the first reason. There is only a miniscule amount of Republicans who care to post. I can't say if this is because they don't want to respond (vis a vis the first reasoning), or that they are really scant in numbers period. I have for some time assumed the second, as I can't think of any reason for a large number to continue at a place where a majority belittles them.
Back to the hart (and not the sideline) of your question. My hopes is that he continues to disalign himself with Europe, perhaps to the point where the U.S. is finally its own nation again beholden only to itself. Don't get me wrong, as I think that international relations are important. However, I would like them at a Country by Country status and not under the pretense of a World Opinion Organization.
Secondly, I hope that he continues his agressive tax cuts. I like the idea someone said here once, although with scorn, that the way to destroy Socialist Services is to bankrupt the economy. If that is the only way to do it, than so be it. Perhaps then we can start from scratch once more and deal with the problems rather than a stop-gap "safety net."
This would lead, I hope, to more privatizations and REAL grassroots charities. Let the people decide what they want to do with their money at a personal level. If the Democrats want to pay higher "taxes" than let them. Have a "higher taxes for the Democrats" fund for those who like lots of money for socialist programs. Then, allow those Democrats to run their own "progressive programs" as they see fit as individuals and private orginizations. If the Repubs don't want to pay taxes, they don't have to outside of perhaps a minimum required by citizenship.
posted
"There are two reasons that you are not hearing much gloating from Republicans here at Hatrack. The first and most important is that they don't feel comfortable posting at this Forum."
Your argument, then, is that the Republicans of Hatrack are not actually above gloating, or are better people than that, but are simply so intimidated by the Democrats here that they don't feel free to express their true colors even in victory?
Hm. Almost all the Republicans I've met on Hatrack -- and I know several -- are in fact better people than that, and I feel honored to know them. By comparison, I am not sorry that the rumored "silent majority" of which you speak does not feel the need to grace us with their presence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, my argument is that there are very few Republicans AT Hatrack. I can only guess at the possibility of the second part of your assumed meaning of my statements.
posted
"No, my argument is that there are very few Republicans AT Hatrack."
You would be wrong. Hatrack actually skews Republican for the age/education demographic to which most of its posters belong.
However, most of the Republicans in Hatrack are capable of behaving with decorum, which may be why you -- as someone apparently familiar with Republicans on other forums, where this is not a traditional skill -- do not recognize them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would hardly be able to tell then with all the 10 to 1 Bush hating, Liberal spewing posting that goes on around here. As such, I can conclude that the "silent majority Republican readership" might be closer to correct.
quote: [republicans]don't feel comfortable posting at this Forum.
I have to say this is true for me. I don't feel like I can voice my views here without being attacked, but I feel like those who disagree with me can say whatever they want with impunity.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't feel like I can voice my views here without being attacked, but I feel like those who disagree with me can say whatever they want with impunity."
I would disagree with you on this point, but that's playing right into your hands.
Let me just point out that your definition of "impunity" is either flawed, or you're fairly unobservant.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to say this is true for me. I don't feel like I can voice my views here without being attacked, but I feel like those who disagree with me can say whatever they want with impunity.
You know, I feel exactly the same way. I'm not kidding, I really mean that. And you know that we're polar opposites.
You know, I'd actually agree that conservative posters gat proportionally more flack, but saying the liberals go along with no one saying anything against them is pretty off base. It's probably just more noticable to you when it's you or your side.
People on both sides routinely get smacked down for various things. Don't get a victim complex about your side, I see liberal people getting smacked down all the time -- for instance, Tom.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone who thinks that anyone can post on Hatrack with impunity is, IMO, either self-obsessed or insecure or both. Even our most beloved posters -- from BobScopatz to Dagonee to Dana to Belle to ClaudiaTherese to AKA to Slash to Ralphie -- have been involved in bloody, knock-down arguments. Often with each other. Liberals clash with liberals here, and conservatives with conservatives. A surprising number of people have opinions which cross normal party lines, resulting in situations where newbies accuse Dag of being (God forbid) a Democrat because they can't get their head around his support of a traditionally "liberal" cause.
If you feel that you are attacked for your beliefs, rest assured that other people are also being attacked for theirs. It may be that those other people are more persuasive or better able to defend their beliefs, or that you are more sensitive and less able to stand up to the criticism. But I've never seen a single real person on Hatrack (as distinct from deliberate trolls) express any belief that was universally disparaged or dismissed outright.
Dogpiles happen, but they happen on both sides. If you don't believe me, try claiming that Christian fanatics will be the downfall of American society some time. We're actually pretty tolerant of points of view here, even relatively extremist ones; we've had three people just today say that they believed it was worth destroying the economy in order to rebuild it from scratch, and everyone responded to those assertions calmly and seriously.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Tom has impunity. In fact I think he often gets disagreed with (quite loudly) and called on it when his posts cross the line.
I myself feel that in some of my opinions I am in the minority and cannot state them without attack and certainly not with impunity - and some of these opinions would be, I am guessing, the opposite of your own opinions on the same subject mph.
I don't think either side of any debate (pro/anti abortion; pro/anti choice; pro/anti the exact meaning of terms when talking about 'choice' and 'abortion' etc etc) has impunity and I don't think either side is either unsupported or left un-challenged.
Maybe we just notice it more when we're being attacked.
Edit: Yeah, I post slowly. Needless to say I started writing this before fugu and Tom posted. I agree with both of them.
I for one do welcome your opinion. I love Hatrack because I get exposed to opinions different than mine, and that forces me to consider my opinions more carefully.
Please do not equate people disagreeing with you with people not welcoming your input.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No worries, I didn't think you were, I just wanted to make a little light of fugu's post.
Also, I meant to put a comma after the first "you know." It might make that sentence parse a little better. *goes to fix it*
But yes, I do feel precisely the same way, which is why aside from today I've been avoiding political threads like the plague for quite some time and plan to keep right on doing so. Today was an aberration. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its pretty simple, if you have a position other people feel is flawed, they're going to tell you why, here. So of course conservatives are attacked, and liberal. There are liberals here who don't feel very comfortable expressing political opinions, and there are conservatives who feel likewise.
m_p_h -- I gotcha, I'm more responding to Occasional
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is not that there's a liberal or conservative bias. The problem is that there are so many smart and well-informed people around here that I'm afraid of expressing an opinion lest it be revealed that I am stupid Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's certainly true that those of us on Hatrack who have deep questions about the social value of religion have to be very careful in voicing those questions.
Not really a complaint. I feel like my time here has helped me learn to deal with religious people in a much more constructive way. But I do hold some opinions that I don't feel comfortable expressing here.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't figure out why people think that this forum owes them the right to speak their mind without "attack."
Heck, we've had two threads in the past two weeks where someone posted essentially just to vent -- a girl afraid of her first naive encounter with an aggressive man, and a young man stripped of dignity by an entire state -- and people argued with them and around them about whether they were right to feel the way they were feeling.
That's just the way Hatrack is.
If I think you're wrong, I'll generally tell you -- and tell you why. I may, if I'm able, tell you in a way that's tactful and expressive and persuasive, but I'm not always a masterful writer of rhetoric. And if you don't think I'm not "attacked" in exactly the same way, every day and in almost every thread, I would suggest that you read the threads in which I participate more carefully.
--------
That said, having gone back and read Porter's last post, I think I need to make something clear: that I disagree loudly and strenuously with his opinions does not mean that I do not appreciate his voicing them in the first place. I've changed my mind a number of times based on discussions on Hatrack, and it hasn't happened because I only read or value posts I agree with.
More importantly, I like Porter; I like his wife. I like almost everyone on Hatrack, in fact, which is something that I think takes some people by surprise. (I know, for example, that The Pixiest was genuinely incredulous when I first wrote her, years ago, to ask what her problem with me was; I think this constantly amazes Farmgirl, as well.) I have almost no religious values in common with Porter, mind you, but the net practical result of our values -- regardless of the different premises we used to get to where we are -- isn't so far apart that he's varelse to me.
In other words, Porter, if you think I'm suppressing your opinions, you're dead wrong. But neither will I ever let you get away with one unchallenged.
posted
Well, it took some very unpleasant experiences. I'm still not sure I've learned my lesson, but we'll see. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: More importantly, I like Porter; I like his wife. I like almost everyone on Hatrack, in fact, which is something that I think takes some people by surprise. (I know, for example, that The Pixiest was genuinely incredulous when I first wrote her, years ago, to ask what her problem with me was; I think this constantly amazes Farmgirl, as well.) I have almost no religious values in common with Porter, mind you, but the net practical result of our values -- regardless of the different premises we used to get to where we are -- isn't so far apart that he's varelse to me.
That's good, and surprising, to hear you say that Tom.
In my very first encounter with you, I felt that you wrote me off as an idiot incapable of rational thought because I allow my religious beliefs affect how I live my life (and vote).
Time and time I have felt this from you Tom. Today, you came out and said that I'm an idiot, along with the majority of this country.
That's why it's surprising to hear you say what you just said.
Thank you, Tom. You just made my very frustrating day a little better.
posted
"Today, you came out and said that I'm an idiot, along with the majority of this country."
I think very few people on Hatrack are idiots. I will not reveal in this thread who those people are.
I do think, Porter, that you made a very unwise and foolish decision, based on beliefs that are themselves unwise and foolish. I don't know how to couch that more democratically.
However, I recognize that you hold those beliefs because of experiences you've had that I have not, and premises you accept which I do not. They are not inherently illogical or even necessarily inaccurate, and I think you are for the most part behaving as your principles demand. That I believe those principles are flawed only indicates that we might find it difficult to find common ground on anything derived from those principles or my equivalents -- and, yet, I think we still agree that, for example, it's bad to beat children and/or kick the homeless.
I'll freely admit to being scared when I hear people tell me that their definition of "good" hinges entirely on what they believe a "god" expects, because that means we have no common frame of reference; it means that I can neither predict nor trust that their behavior is consistent with any of the principles I consider essential to a civilized society. And I know people find this fear of mine offensive, because they can't imagine their god ever requiring of them something that I might consider deplorably evil and don't understand how I could.
But I mean this in the best possible way, Porter: I don't think you and Beverly would shoot my daughter even if you thought God asked you to. I think you're good people, regardless of your beliefs.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a few threads on the front page right now in which, if you defended your conservative voting stance, you would be snarled at. There are those conclusions that are accepted as foregone around here because nobody wants to open the can of worms again. Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There are a few threads on the front page right now in which, if you defended your conservative voting stance, you would be snarled at."
I can think of one, in which a young man seeking sympathy and feeling sorry that his entire state voted to invalidate his sense of self vented his sorrow -- and people still came into the thread to tell him that they thought it was a good thing.
Which other threads do you think would get the same reaction?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would actually be very interested in what you, Dagonee, hope and expect out of a second term Bush administration.
I'm not ignoring you fugu, (or you either, Storm) but I haven't felt like I've had time to put this together. I don't feel comfortable posting something like this in particular unless it's meticulously worded and thought out. It's not just a question of preparing the post, but also be able and willing to handle the back an forth it may create. I always feel bad not responding to thoughtful replies to me (I still owe MrSquick one), and don't want to add to that. The topics I'm participating in now are much simpler to compose for.
Supreme Court nominations do figure in highly, though.
Last week, Bush became the first Republican president to be re-elected with House and Senate majorities since 1924. What do you think?
Beverly Banks - Systems Analyst "So they still control the House, Senate, and Oval Office? Well, at least we still have the smug, condescending attitude that cost us the election in the first place."
Sam Howell - Credit Checker "What's so bad about this? Could some Democrat explain it to me in under an hour, without starting to scream or cry?"
Leo Watts Custom Tailor "The fact that 48 percent of Americans voted for a boring placeholder like John Kerry is actually a really good sign for the Left."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
