quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't think you should be able to vote in both primaries, that wouldn't necessarily be fair. But you should be able to vote in either, whichever you happen to think has the best candidate that you want to support.
I wish that was the case too. Partisan politics serve no one but the special interests and the politicians.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The only thing you accomplish by weaving all of that together with, "Those dastardly Republicans and Bushies stole my vote!" is to get people to turn off their ears. I had that impulse, and I'm a registered Independant! Try to imagine how much headway you'd make with the people you really need to convince, those who support Bush.
This statement caught my eye so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.
I don't think that it is possible anymore to change anybody's mind (in most cases), no matter how reasonable or thought-out the argument is. National politics have become way too polarized. Nobody is really willing to change their mind and even mild disagreement with "the party line" on either side can cause people to start leveling accusations. I guess my main point is that there seems to be very little dialogue even when people don't resort to "the evil Bushies stole the election" or "democrats love terrorists" type of talk.
I agree - I know I won't change anyone's closed mind, but it certainly feels better to vent a bit. And an open mind might think about it.
I try my best to do that: to think, and learn.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with this type of appeal on an issue like this is that the open minds have already thought about it, and usually reached their own conclusions before you came along and began warning them of the wretched evils of __________ (insert party name here).
This is old news. The troubles with voting procedures, verification, manufacturing new machines, all of it, has been widely documented. The majority of people simply don't care at all, and care only a bit when it's a presidential election year. As for the rest, many of them are simply going to toe the party line and it will be good or bad depending on whether or not their party benefits.
And of the minority of people in America that actually have open minds on issues of party politics...they had open minds, and probably have made their decisions back when this news was news. This is why I am frustrated with your method, Silkie. It feels good, but accomplishes nothing beyond what was already going on: people who agreed with you before will agree with you when you were done speaking.
What I'm about to say may sound insulting, but I promise you I'm mentioning it only for its relevance. Have you ever read the story called Hatchet by Gary Paulsen? It's a coming-of-age story about a young teenager who becomes stranded in the northern Canadian wilderness after the plane he's traveling in crashes, and he has basically the clothes on his back and the hatchet his mother gave him as a present.
The beginning is pretty rough. He's a city boy and doesn't know squat about living in the wilderness, and it's a minor miracle that he doesn't die many times from simple ignorance. Naturally he cries several times after realizing that a rescue is unlikely bordering on impossible.
The turning point for him is his realization that self-pity doesn't solve anything. He was cold, hungry, hurting, scared and lonely before he had his cry and when it was over, all of that was the same, except it was a bit closer to dark and mosquito swarms.
I was just re-reading that story this morning, so that thought struck me just now when I was thinking about this thread. I am not suggesting you are engaged in self-pity, or that you're behaving adolescently, or you're crying, or anything like that. I brought it up only because the situations seem similar in the type of realization Brian has: that the activity doesn't change anything. Nothing is gained, nothing is changed. That's the kind of realization I've had when it comes to talking about American politics.
Most people are already convinced, very few people have open minds, not much is actually news and if you want to achieve results, framing your persuasive attempts in partisan language just isn't going to work. A way must be found to sidestep that issue, to leave people no room for disagreement.
If you really want to persuade people, then, you're not going to get anywhere by pointing out to them all the awful things Republicans have done. They've got a framework all ready to ignite in response to that. I have had much more worthwhile conversations with people when I speak in hypotheticals and leave out party names and political individuals.
In this case, for instance, I think you'll find in your own experience that if you were to point out the things you've read, heard, and seen for yourself as far as voting irregularities are concerned but left out mentioning who exactly was the culprit, your target may well end up agreeing with you that such things are wrong and should be addressed by the government...and after they realize that the perpetrator was a member of their own party, what can they say? Few people indeed have the outright pig-headedness to directly that something they just agreed was wrong is right because their party is the one doing it. Not when you force them to face it on those terms. It's like something Tom Davidson said awhile back: people are usually very moral indeed when it comes to straightforward choices. Few people would steal money from an open cash-register at a convenience store. Many more people, on the other hand, would haze a little on their taxes or milk the clock at work a bit.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Have you ever read the story called Hatchet by Gary Paulsen?
*********
I have had much more worthwhile conversations with people when I speak in hypotheticals and leave out party names and political individuals.
*********
Few people indeed have the outright pig-headedness to directly that something they just agreed was wrong is right because their party is the one doing it. Not when you force them to face it on those terms.
1. I LOVE that book. It probably is one of my favorite books of all time. Oooh. Now I have to go find it and read it again.
2. I agree with you about having more worthwhile conversations with people without mentioning names or parties. I try to keep my political discussions with people on this level because once you mention a political party, all bets are off.
3. Now this could mean that I just need more reasonable friends, but I've had a few conversations where a person agrees that something is wrong when the *insert party name* does it but not when *insert other party name* does it.
What usually happens is they'll disagree with something on principle (gerrymandering, foreign policy, nation building, financial issues, government intrusions into private lives) but then immediately make an excuse for why it's not an issue when their party does it because their party does it better than the other one or because their party has pure motives. I've had this happen to me from people on both sides.
I just wish we had a multi-party system. I can't get excited about either side. Every election all I do is vote for the person who is less vile than the other one. And sometimes I can't even figure out which one that is!
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole shift in the conversation is exactly one of the reasons why I started this thread––there is a big difference between what we HAVE and what we WANT. We are far more inclined to vote based on our value system rather than what actually affects us personally.
It's amazing how much two people can have wildly different takes on the same subject. I think of the phrase "As different as night and day," but, if you think about it, the only difference is the amount of light. It may be perceived differently, but, in reality, everything you see by day is there at night, and visa versa. We simply view the moment in a totally different way.
I guess I don't get why there is so much hatred when values vary. (Not anger, but real loathing). It is a response to fear? A fear of things changing? I have strong feelings on subjects, and I have the right to stand up and oppose something, but I can reasonably say I have never hated anyone, regardless of their belief system.
Well, except for Hillary Clinton. Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I vote almost entirely based on issues rather than values. Values matter to me, but I'm far more concerned about what a candidate's position on an issue is.
Not that that really matters either, Bush went back on a large portion of his campaign promises, and flat flipflopped on several key positions. But not everyone is like that.
Values are nice, but I'd still rather vote for B. Clinton over Bush. Sex scandals don't affect me in the slighest, they don't really affect anyone other than the media who somehow think it really has an affect on children, or whoever they think it's impacting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but if "sex scandals don't affect (you) in the slightest," then what does affect you? Why does one issue have no merit while another gets you riled?
Edit: I never responded to Tom's earlier question on why I think we're getting more secular. Overall church attendance is declining (only about 20% of Americans attend church weekly these days, apparently), and if we were so religious––wouldn't public policy be moving toward more traditional religious values, rather than away from them?
Blue laws, sabbath laws, sodomy laws––dying or dead. Pornography is rampant, abortions are a dime a dozen, we have social programs out the wazoo, we can't drill in ANWR and movies about gay cowboys will win for Best Picture.
So what's the big deal? Doesn't seem like the "Religious Right" is making any headway at all.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Yes, but if "sex scandals don't affect (you) in the slightest," then what does affect you? Why does one issue have no merit while another gets you riled?
Edit: I never responded to Tom's earlier question on why I think we're getting more secular. Overall church attendance is declining (only about 20% of Americans attend church weekly these days, apparently), and if we were so religious––wouldn't public policy be moving toward more traditional religious values, rather than away from them?
Blue laws, sabbath laws, sodomy laws––dying or dead. Pornography is rampant, abortions are a dime a dozen, we have social programs out the wazoo, we can't drill in ANWR and movies about gay cowboys will win for Best Picture.
So what's the big deal? Doesn't seem like the "Religious Right" is making any headway at all.
You have a point Rakeesh. I'll think about that.
estavares, I think your answer might boil down to 'Who votes?'
An upstanding "Religious Right" church goer is more likely to show up at the polls to vote. Even more likely when s/he is urged to do so from the pulpit, citing reasons intrinsic to those "traditional religious values." Abortion, for instance.
So, even though the majority of people in the US may not favor a "traditional religious values" agenda, the slim majority of people who vote favor the "traditional religious values agenda."
The rest of the people (often not voting) support the freedom of choice to have:
quote:dying or dead Blue laws, sabbath laws, sodomy laws–– Pornography, freedom of choice in abortion, social programs to take care of the less fortunate, NOT drilling in ANWR and movies about whatever floats your boat, including gay cowboys.
Perhaps that is why there was an effort in the last few years to make it more difficult to vote on impulse and a crack down on nontraditional voter registration in some swing states. So many people just DON'T vote.
Oprah had a show about voting. She chose people fromr her audience who had never voted, and interviewed them. Most of those people that had never voted said the same thing, or something similar: 'My vote wouldn't matter.'
A lot of people feel powerless in that way.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer your question about what gets me riled. Mostly energy/environmental policy and the budget. These 2/3 (depending on how you look at it) issues are the most important for the nation I believe at this moment, and they will most likely determine who I will vote for in the next election.
As for what does and doesn't get me riled. Sex scandals have nothing to do with the way the nation is run. They have nothing to do with how well the president is governing the nation, and it has nothing to do with pending legislation. Rising health care costs concern me, social security concerns me, foriegn policy concerns me, energy concerns me, all because these are things that personally effect me and are possible dangers to my nation, so I deem them important enough to get riled up over.
By the way, I resent that you assert pornography is a liberal issue, where the hell did you get that from?
Abortions aren't a dime a dozen, and your apparent nemesis, Hillary, said she wants to make abortions as rare as possible, not exactly your average baby killing liberal talk is it? Besides, the supreme court is reviewing abortion, and South Dakota is passing a law that outlaws it, so tell me that the status quo isn't under assault, and they shouldn't be standing up for what they believe in.
ANWR drilling is going to be tacked onto the next budget bill, it's still an issue. Everything you are bringing up is an issue that is currently being fought over because someone is trying to change the status quo, and someone else is trying to keep the status quo, which, while given a slight advantage, can be just as difficult.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I am registered Florida Independent. Just sayin'.
I admire your principals Chris (and pH). I did what was right for me. I want to vote in the Primaries. I still can't vote for ANYONE I choose to vote for in the Primaries, but I do have more choices.
I think that the party system (and the political schism we are witness to) is perpetuated by these rules that force you to choose a party.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Fascinating thought. Something to think on further...
Lyrhawn:
You have got to relax. I wish there was a "tongue in cheek" smiley. I was being facetious, and you read waaaaaay too much into my posts.
I never said pornography is a liberal issue. I said that clearly the Religious Right ain't getting as much done as people think they are. I read post after post of all these general concerns and the usual by the Left and, frankly, real examples are few and far between. It's all values rhetoric, and not the scope of my question.
I'm not arguing against voting for one's values––I'm just curious to hear the day-to-day, average American experience that has been directly impacted (for the negative) by the current administration and the so-called Religious Right.
Where is the Right directly responsible for real reverses in policies that directly affect you every day?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
The only thing that has affected me, via my mom, is the law that was recently passed that forces credit card companies to raise the amount they make their customers pay, so people will pay off their bills faster and pay less interest over time. My mom, who was struggling to get by before, is in trouble now that her credit card bills (which aren't that big, but sometimes a small stone can tip the balance) were all doubled more or less.
Also, the Republicans and Bush just created and passed legislation that cuts student loans and drastically raises the interest rate on all future student loans, so that too affects me.
As far as the rest, narrowing the scope to how it affects your every day life. Wanting to live in a country that is a certain way does affect your every day life. Flip that around though, and why does the religious right want to outlaw abortion? It doesn't affect them at all if they can simply choose not to.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you look at their actions and not their words (or votes), it doesn’t appear that that majority of American people really agree with the religious right’s agenda. After all, a whole lot of people aren’t going to church or even bothering to teach their kids about religion. And tons of people are getting abortions, looking at porn, playing violent video games, and watching sex and violence on TV. So why worry about the religious right if it doesn’t currently affect my life or the lives of the majority of Americans?
I feel uneasy that the religious right has attempted to marry itself to public policy.*** I do not like the idea of a set of stated moral values that are supposed to represent everybody in the country. I feel like the small intrusions in other peoples’ lives today could become major intrusions on my life tomorrow. Maybe this is an unfounded fear. Maybe people will always mouth the words “morals and values” and vote for people who mouth the same words but never fundamentally change how our government and religion interact.
Ultimately, the religious right doesn’t creep me out because I oppose any one of its ideas (I mean abortions as birth control are bad, teen pregnancy is bad, community is good, religion absolutely holds a place in the lives of many people, etc); it creeps me out because the entire agenda when taken as a whole is one of repression of individual freedoms (unless you conform to a specific brand of religion).
**Policies that come to mind include funding to religious abstinence-only sex ed. in schools, federal money to faith-based AIDS health groups in Africa that don’t pass out condoms, and pressure on welfare or drug rehab recipients to join whatever religion was passing out state money. (I’m too tired to dig around for individual citations for each. I found information for all of these on www.theocracywatch.org. I’m aware that the site has an agenda and should thus probably be taken with a grain of salt. However, I mentioned only the things I could find talked about in actual newspaper articles on the site…I stayed away from op-ed pieces and conjecture). It's true that a lot of these programs have been modified or discontinued, but not all of them. This scares me because Pat Robertson seems to think he's right and he doesn't seem likely to give up just because a couple of programs didn't work out (I just visited the Christian Coalition and Pat Robertson websites.)
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I am a liberal because of my religion. I believe that a society where the rich get richer and the poor are forgotten is contrary to my religion. I believe that a society where people are marginalized because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or class is contrary to my religion. I believe a society where there are folks hanging on to life by a thread and we don't even see them until disaster strikes is contrary to my religion. I believe that a society where, instead of remembering that everything we have is a gift from God, we somehow think we deserve more than our neighbor is contrary to my religion.
Stop. Now. Stop defining "religious" as "concerned about sexual morality". If you are talking about the Christian religion and you are really paying attention, you should know better.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom may be prophetic...or at least tuned in a litte deeper to the pulse of the nation based on what I read about South Dakota possibly making abortion illegal again.
(Rubs chin thoughtfully.)
Interesting. I'll be curious to see if it holds any water. I think it fascinating that the states are deciding these "hot button" issues since the national forum won't touch them with a ten-foot pole.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, estavares, you keep on saying that nobody is providing concrete examples of the issues your question addresses. And yet, when people have made the effort to clearly define exactly what they are talking about, you seem to be ignoring it. One might begin to think that instead of actually wanting to learn from the answers to your question, you are trying to push a personal agenda. I, personally, would appreciate it if you chose to respond to the posts above (not just Toms) that specifically answer your question.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
As long as you realize (I guess you do) that concern for the poor is not just a religious value. It's a secular one, as well.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to go out and wantonly abort fetuses for fun, and in fact I find the practice of abortion distasteful. However, in light of the consequences of NOT allowing the practice to go on, I choose to allow it to continue. I would rather see the rights of an individual adult be upheld, although it bothers me that a child may be involved too.
Onicro said that
Not that i want to center this thread around this one topic, but i can't help but think that you, Onicro (and other "pro-choicers") need to get your priorities straight. It "bothers you that a child MAY be involved?". In every case, a child is getting an axe to the head. In every case besides that which could endanger the life of the mother, the CHILD is being KILLED so that the mother can avoid an INCONVIENENCE. A huge inconvienience, but still that.
If you think that civil rights are being infringed by not letting a person have an abortion, than consider this: A persons genetic makeup is exactly the same upon conception as when they are 50 years old. Therefore you are infringing on a persons right to CHOOSE to live.
Consider also this, unless a woman was raped, she has willingly engaged in activity that could produce a child. Deal with it. Don't shirk your responsabillaties because your "not ready". wah.
If a woman was raped, then killing the child still doesn't solve anything. It helps you deny the reality of the situation. It is a horrible thing to go through, being raped ( I know people who have been), and I don't by any means want to trivialize the horror that rape victims go through. However once you are pregnant it becomes a matter of responsabillity to put things into perspective. Any baby, regardless of how it was concieved is a beutifull person. Why take the only blessing in a horrible situation and through it out the window. (If a girl is so young that pregnancy/birth may permanently harm her or her reproductive system is a different case that falls under risk to the mother).
If you think that it would be better for the world or the baby to kill it the it than to let it grow up in a foster home, then ask yourself these two questions: 1) Since when did the world get to decide it can kill innocent people on the grounds that they MIGHT make the world worse? 2) Are you willing to go ask even the most misserable and detramental, instatutionalized thug, if he wants to die, and if you can kill him. Kiling him then is the same as killing him inuetero, so if your his mom, go off him. It's your right choose, even if he may be involved. A little.
Again please forgive the bluntness i feel I have to use to get my point across. If you have been the victim a rape, I am sincerely sorry, and I hope you realize that you are beutifull person who deserves to be loved, and in no way did you diserve the tragedy that has befallen you. And in no way do you deserve to keep suffering.
Neither does an innocent child deserve to die, because of the same tragedy.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[deleted for snark factor -- I really should behave better]
[Edited to add: kmboots, that was a beautiful paean to religion. You and keep a spark of faith alive in me. ]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Concern for the poor is a religious value!
I am a liberal because of my religion. I believe that a society where the rich get richer and the poor are forgotten is contrary to my religion. I believe that a society where people are marginalized because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or class is contrary to my religion. I believe a society where there are folks hanging on to life by a thread and we don't even see them until disaster strikes is contrary to my religion. I believe that a society where, instead of remembering that everything we have is a gift from God, we somehow think we deserve more than our neighbor is contrary to my religion.
Stop. Now. Stop defining "religious" as "concerned about sexual morality". If you are talking about the Christian religion and you are really paying attention, you should know better.
quote:Doing that would constitute an endorsement of a particular religion, and make the law faith based. Our law must make the judgement of when a fetus becomes human on scientific facts, and the scientific fact is that unless a 'baby' is viable outside the womb, it is not a person yet, by scientific judgement.
I deleted a whole bunch of stuff to focus solely on this question: How on earth does "scientific judgment" demonstrate that a baby isn't a person until he or she is viable outside the womb?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're doing some serious misrepresentation of your opposition when it comes to abortion, Silkie. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but it's there.
quote:While some abortions are certainly for convenience, many are for good reasons related either to the Mother's health, or due to an unhealthy or malformed fetus.
Is this really a position you'd like to stick to? That abortions for convenience aren't a massive chunk of the total abortions? And that abortions in the case of unhealthy fetuses or health-of-mother cases are frequently much less problematic, if problematic at all, for pro-lifers?
quote:While I respect your right to your own opinion about whether (or not) a fetus is a child, it is important to remember that many people do not share the faith based idea that conception makes a collection of undifferentiated cells into a person. There are many religions, and different Religions have different beliefs about such things.
The idea that a fetus might be a true human being is by no means a solely religious idea. That it is often a religious idea is not remotely the same thing.
It is an item of faith that a fetus is a worthless lump of tissue, to be discarded at whim. You mentioned science, which apparently you have great faith in. So tell me: what does science say about when exactly human life begins? It's certainly some time before actual birth.
So...when? Oh, right. When viable outside the womb. So...you can link me to the World Council of All Scientists to view their statement on this, of course? No?
I'd be careful up on that soapbox. It's not very sturdy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well said. It's funny how the concept of religion is often considered only a value of the "Right." I hate how national debate waters things down into soundbytes...
Foundling:
Sorry it seems that way. I don't take the time to respond to every example, and a few have been very helpful (I try to acknowledge as best I can). A good example is Lyrhawn, who spent a lot of time getting offended––then came up with some real concrete examples. I hadn't been at the computer since to acknowledge my appreciation.
Of course I have a personal agenda. I don't get people––many of them on this board––who spew such hatred for the Right for no reason other than it offends their sensibilities. They can do whatever they dang well please. They can believe and act and buy and live and say anything. They're not at a loss for anything. And many who responded said the same old thing––and none of it has any direct impact on them whatsoever.
I get disagreeing with values. I get voting for what you believe. But I wanted to see if all this fear and anger about losing rights or the Right "imposing" their will on society (especially the Religious Right) wasn't just a values debate––but had real examples that affect real people. If you read these posts, there's not a heck of a lot. Maybe three or four posters have done it.
I want to better understand this issue. I don't want the usual rhetoric. I have no plans to disagree with any of them; just to better see things from their POV.
[Edited for clarification.]
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your reasoning is basically why I'm a liberal in many things at home. I believe that it is more Christlike to be concerned with poverty and human suffering ahead of who's having sex with whom.
That said, I do think who is having sex with whom is a religious issue too, just not as important of an issue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by estavares: A good example is Lyrhawn, who spent a lot of time getting offended––then came up with some real concrete examples.
I wasn't aware that a single sentence constituted a "lot of time getting offended" but I suppose we're all allowed to define time in our own manner. But personally I'd say I was actually a bad example, seeing as how all my posts here, except for the one sentence of one post haven't been me being offended.
Further, you're being a little hypocritical here. You're saying that liberals shouldn't be all up in arms about what the right is trying to change because these are things that don't directly affect them. Alright, the "religious right" is hellbent on outlawing abortion. Tell me, how does the legalization of abortion affect the people of the right in their everyday lives?
The "religious right" wants a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage, tell me, how does gay marriage affect the every day life of someone part of the "religious right"?
The right in general is the party that is always pushing a federal ban on flag burning, explain to me how does someone burning a flag affect the every day life of someone on the right?
If you're going to set the parameters for the debate, you have to answer to the problems of the other side too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, actually, I don't. This isn't a debate.
Consistently putting words in my mouth is dishonest––I never said "liberals shouldn't be up in arms about what the right is trying to change." I said that they are angry, yet it seems social and public policy consistently goes their way...so I want examples.
This is what I've read so far:
1. Homosexuals can't get legally married in most places, and that leads to sadness, drug use and possible suicide;
2. Abortion may be made illegal again, thus denying women the right to abort pregnancies as desired;
3. Voting practices are denying people the chance for fair and equal representation, the Right might be unduly influencing results;
4. More of the Right actually vote, thus leading to possible changes in policy that goes contrary to the Left's value stance;
5. Credit card rates are rising;
5. Student loans are harder to get and cost more.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: in my state, a Democratic government thinks that solving transportation problems means throwing money at building more roads, rather than mass transit like Light Rail and more buses. This means it takes me 60-90 minutes to travel 35 miles, twice a day. This means I pay double the cost of gasoline as I idle in traffic.
It may not be the Democrats' fault, but I'd like to think the Republicans' plan to vastly change the infrastructure to include Light Rail would help reduce the amount of traffic and save commuters a lot of money.
THAT is a direct result, not a values-issue.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Here's an example of what I'm talking about: in my state, a Democratic government thinks that solving transportation problems means throwing money at building more roads, rather than mass transit like Light Rail and more buses.
I think you'll find that whichever government you happen to elect into the majority will wind up building more roads.
Why?
Because at the end of the day, road expansions and repairs function as disguised welfare programs.
There is very little political support -- EVER -- for light rail, except (quite conveniently) from whichever party happens to be in the minority at any given moment. Once they get power, any promises of light rail will be almost immediately forgotten.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
estavares, I don't think you really care about the answer to the question you originally asked. You've misread or ignored what I've said, and have either ignored what others have said, or changed the scope of the discussion when what is being discussed doesn't fit your agenda. Plus the very basis of your question is hypocritical if you refuse to look at it from the other side, which you seem to support, but apparently don't need to answer for.
I'll no longer contribute to this thread.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank goodness. I was weary of my words getting taken out of context and misread over and over and over again.
Tom:
You are probably right. The only time I've seen Light Rail get ushered in with little to no complaint was in Salt Lake City––suddeny a big issue when they won the 2002 Winter Olympics. Suddenly a project no one could fund "magically" managed to get made.
Here in Seattle the subject is pathetic, but we're dealing even more with a populace who don't want to be inconvenienced or have to pay for any additional work.
I find that, with all the party blowhards on either side, it's still the public that makes the final decision. We get exactly what we vote for.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Thank goodness. I was weary of my words getting taken out of context and misread over and over and over again.
Alright, I'll pop back in just to say this:
Watch how often you use hyperbole here, people are going to catch you, and you are going to lose arguments because of it, and you will the respect of others, if you ever manage to earn it to begin with. Especially if you are just doing it to be offensive on purpose.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You have been dishonest by twisting my words into motives that don't exist. There was no argument in this thread. I was looking for answers, and I got a good many of them––including your own––and have been enlightened thereby.
What part of "I want to understand the other point of view" don't you GET?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Show me where I have taken your words out of context "over and over and over again" and where I "read way to much into all" your posts. And show me where I spent "a lot of time getting offended."
All of that is hyperbole.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I sort of see what you are saying and I might agree with some parts of it, but your overall argument, which I take to boil down to "We've got what we want, so let's sit back and relax" makes no sense to me at all.
Never said anything of the kind, and your summary is flat wrong. When I tried to clarify my initial objectives, you continued to type the same general, values-driven reasons that was beyond the scope of my question.
quote: Seriously? That bugs you, but Bush treating everyone like an idiot and a traitor if they don't agree with him doesn't?
Who's hyperboling now?
quote: By the way, I resent that you assert pornography is a liberal issue, where the hell did you get that from?
Again, where did I assert that? I didn't. I said it's increasing, so the so-called "Right" obviously doesn't have the influence people think they do. However, when I read opinions like this one, I begin to wonder if maybe the Left IS partially responsible.
quote: You've misread or ignored what I've said, and have either ignored what others have said, or changed the scope of the discussion when what is being discussed doesn't fit your agenda. Plus the very basis of your question is hypocritical if you refuse to look at it from the other side, which you seem to support, but apparently don't need to answer for.
This is flat-out dishonest and manipulative. My scope has always been the same––I'll have to reread my posts and see what I'm saying that appears I am changing things, ignoring issues, or pushing some kind of agenda.
I thought I was being objective, but apparently I'm being misunderstood...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The majority of my arguments weren't values driven though, which I specifically mentioned in this thread. You're contention is that if it doesn't directly affect you, then it's a values debate. Am I wrong about that?
I'm a little surprised that you are surprised that I got this: "We've got what we want, so let's sit back and relax" out of your words. You keep saying that liberals already have everything they want in the status quo, this to me suggests that they shouldn't be upset about anything since they already hold the high ground. Are you really that surprised someone might get thet argument from what you've said?
And I don't think my comment about Bush was really that much hyperbole. I'm sure you remember the whole "you're with us or against us" speeches he used to make all the time.
Further, you said something along the lines (in a thread about complaining liberals), that pornography is rampant, along with a slew of issues that are generally considered liberal issues, so you can see how someone might considered that lumping together to be your way of insinuating that you see it as a liberal issue.
As for my last quote on that, the one that starts "you've misread or ignored.." I guess in hindsight I take some of that back. There's a basic disagreement between us on what constitutes values and what directly affects us. Which is where your "question" lies.
And by the way, what, since we're talking SPECIFICS here, bothers you so much about Hillary Clinton? Her policies I mean.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm not getting where we're getting confused. I believe that most of what you stated throughout this thread IS values-driven, because––other than the difficulty of getting student loans––I don't see how anything affects you directly.
There's nothing wrong with that; I'm just looking for specifics. And I'm not disagreeing with anything brought up (unless I think the facts are wrong). Seriously.
I'm looking back on my posts and trying to understand where the communication is breaking down––I'm not ignoring opinions, but those examples that are values-driven. To me, it feels like people DON'T have an answer, that they DON'T have a good reason to hate the Right other than the Right's values (as threatening as they might be) are not their own.
As for Hillary, this is what I wrote earlier:
quote: I despise her smirky, self-centered, arrogant pontification that tries to grab headlines, and I strongly disagree with almost everything she advocates.
Mostly it's her hypocrisy on the Iraq War. But even more mostly it's just that she bugs the heck out of me. Perfect example where there isn't a decent enough reason, other than I have never liked her from Day One. Someone like McCain can act the same way and I don't care; go figure.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
1. Value oriented issues (to me), are ones where a personal belief affects the way you decide on something. Whether or not I believe abortion or gay marriage to be right or wrong are values, in the same sense that the belief in the rightness of segretaion is a value I suppose. The death penalty is something that will almost definitely never affect me, barring some freak circumstance, and thus my position on it will be directly related to my personal values. But issues like the complete lack of fiscal responsibility that the right has shown in the last eight years directly affect me. They are spending money that I will have to pay back in the future. Other things that I mentioned earlier like the environment and energy and what not, those aren't values issues either. Neither is healthcare. They effect my life, and my future life in very real ways.
I think you're seeing "direct impact" as something that has to be immediate, whereas I see what might happen down the road as something that WILL directly impact me, and thus voting on such an issue is not a value vote, it's a substantive vote that directly effects me, just not yet.
Granted, when I brought up gay marriage and abortion earlier, those are values arguments, though if you ask me that's still a substantive reason to not like the right. Sometimes an argument of values vs. values is just as important as what you're asking for. The difference is the left, as of late, always seems to be fighting to protect the right of someone to do something that has nothing to do with the right, while the right spends much of its time trying to impose its own sense of morality on others. That alone, from a philosophical point of view is reason enough to have severe disdain and dislike for them, if they are the party of imposition.
I personally don't have much of a pathological hatred of the right. I think they are wrong about more things than not, and that some of them are on a hellbent crusade to remake the US according to their values system. And I also think that is wrong, and unAmerican in many ways. This nation was formed on a basis of majority rule with respect of minority rights, not about majority rule and the others can just deal with it.
I also think they are running the government wrong. They are spending too much, and at the same time are giving tax cuts to the uber wealthy. They aren't asking the citizens of this nation to do anything to help themselves really, which is the opposite message of what they should be giving. They are ignoring, or purposefully damaging the environment, which will imperil the future health and safety of this nation. They are corrupt as all hell, which isn't to say that the left isn't, but it's the right that is getting caught red handed all over the place lately. They are smug, and superior, and dismissive of other points of view (yes, that counts as less of a "direct affect" argument, but like your Hillary argument, it annoys the hell out of me).
And if you think the majority of what I just said is a values argument, then we've reached the crux of our disagreement. Those are all things that directly effect my personal health and safety, but those effects may not be seen for several years, or maybe even decades. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned now for my future, that's just silly.
2. Really a minor point. But so far as Hillary and the Iraq War, I don't get it. She's one of the staunchest supporters of the military in the Democratic party, was, and is the biggest Democratic supporter of the Afghanistan War, and was totally in favor of the Iraq War. What you call hypocrisy, I call common sense. She's mad, as many, even many on the right were, that Bush went in without seeking any further diplomatic solutions. She's mad that the war has been badly bungled on many fronts, and this isn't just her laymens opinion. Many inside the Republican establishment have admitted there have been problems, hell, virtually everyone has admitted, even the military, that things were poorly planned and Iraq was misjudged. Even BUSH said they were wrong, wrong, wrong about a lot. So how is it hypocrisy to vote for something, then change your mind when you realize things aren't exactly as they originally seemed when you first formed your opinion?
I guess that's what bugs me most about Hillary haters. Like your confusion on why people hate the right, I really don't understand why there is such emnity towards Hillary, especially when most of her policies are even handed and moderate, and she pisses off the left wing liberal establishment so often.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, my contention is that most of what constitues "imposing" one's will is whole lot of nothing, especially when there's little proof anything's been imposed at all. On the contrary, the "line" of social policy is firmly entrenched in the Left and won't be moving back over anytime soon.
This thread has guided me to a few issues that DO seem to be growing in strength, and that's fascinating.
I think most of what you said about the Right applies to the Left. I personally think political parties are in need of a major overhaul, as the divide between the American people and how they are being represented in government is widening.
As for Hillary...
I just can't stand her. Sorry.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
I agree to disagree about some of this. I am curious as to what I "said about the Right applies to the Left" Because if you're trying to say that the Left is the one imposing their views on the Right, then we really have a major disagreement between us, and I challenge you to prove it, if that is in fact what you are saying.
Take on of the bigger "Left" issues, gay marriage. I don't see how you can say the Left really has any traction on the issue. ONE out of fifty states has legal protection for gay marriage. And DOZENS of other states have made constitutional amendments to their constitutions to make it ILLEGAL for gays to marry. That is a major imposition of the Right's will upon others. How is that little proof? It might not matter much to me, a hetero, or you, if you are, but to a gay guy/girl it matters a lot, and their rights have been trampled on by the Right. How do you dispute that?
What do you mean by the "'line' of social policy is firmly entrenched in the Left"? And what have I said about the Right is applicable to the Left?
I agree that parties need an overhaul. My wish is for the moderates of the nation to form a massive party and leave the extreme Right and Left out in the cold.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Me, too. So is my mother.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
