Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay
I'm going to go bang my head against a wall for an hour or so, it would be much more enjoyable than dealing with you, it's utterly pointless, ace.
We know you have no interest in PM's, or reporting posts, you'd rather piss and moan about it and drag threads off topic with your pissing and moaning than use the resources avaliable to you to deal with it. You're right, we're all wrong, blah, blah, blah, enjoy.
And yeah, yeah, my posts haven't been on topic, so no need to say it, forgive me for trying to keep a thread you're involved in even remotely on topic, maybe we need to hear how you watched Casper again.
|
In context, my reference to Casper was very much on target. If you didn't get it, perhaps go through the thread again and you may see why I wrote what i wrote. Or if you want to question me in that thread on the issue, feel free to do so.
---------- Post added at 05:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I thought you were referring to centrism on the political spectrum. The question of whether to go to war—yes or no—is something else. It's like you're assuming that a centrist would say, "maybe" or "let me think about it" or "can I get back to you?" or "I'm not sure." Centrism does not refer to the response one makes to a yes-or-no question regarding a particular issue.
|
I don't know what a centrist would say.
I don't think I understand what you want. If a centrist adopts moderate policies that lie between the extremes - I don't see how that is possible on an issue by issue basis, however, if the net of position equates to zero, then perhaps real centrism exists. For example I support the legalization of marijuana and I support gun ownership rights, a left and a right position - would I be a centrist if those were the only tow issues in question? I would say no, because there is no moderate position on those questions. I can not think of any issue where there is a true moderate position, only positions where a person may not have a strong opinion.
Quote:
|
You've more or less acknowledged that politics exist on a spectrum or continuum. Are you saying that a spectrum/continuum does not have a centre? Or are you saying that taking a position somewhere on the centre isn't as desirable? If so, why is that?
|
The notion of people willing to compromise their beliefs on important issues, perhaps because those issues are not important to them personally leads to a false belief that there is a center. At the end of a process with people like this making decisions we get results like the one referenced above regarding the US Constitution question on slavery. People who did not appreciate the importance of the question forged a compromise that was a disaster. We have better clarity, better law, better results when matters are resolved by those on the extremes who have an opinion. Our nation is trying to compromise on health-care, war, deficits, taxation, energy, trade, etc., and in each case we are getting unworkable responses
Quote:
|
I apologize if I have misread your position. I think I have. American politics has been steeped in centrism for decades if not centuries.
|
On many of the big question when this nation has made the most progress it has been because of a full commitment to either extreme. For example there was no moderation on the question of social security - some argue it was a liberal position and we needed to go all in or not do it. During the same era, WWII - some would argue a right issue, we needed to go all in or not do it. I say with health-care reform, we go all in with single payer or do the minor fixes to make it more free market.
---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
I think it's funny that all my conservative friends think this vote was a "mandate" on anything.
|
what I suggest is that it was an "against" result. I agree that it was not a mandate "for" a Republican platform, very few actually ran on that. I have been saying the anti-Pelosi message worked. The Speaker Pelosi angle worked more so than the Pres. Obama angle because many people like him and he has relatively high favorability ratings given the circumstances.
---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Sprinkle in some good ol' racism and I think you've hit the nail on the head.
|
You gotta be kidding. You think a measurable component of the results had a racial element? Do you think in less than 2 years all the non-racist people who helped put Pres. Obama in office all of a sudden became racist? Is this what you think or is the racist thing just a liberal knee-jerk reaction to when things don't go their way?
---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Endorphins carry with them no direct health risk.
|
Neither do Happy Meals.
Quote:
|
Can you share your definition of "value", in the ethical sense of the word?
|
I think cultural "values" are a reflection the general shared views of a population. There are views I hold that are not in sync with American cultural values, even to the degree where I ( and I have stated this before) don't think I would be electable to a statewide or national political office. Given my strong feelings on some issues conservatives would consider liberal I could not get conservative support and on most issues liberals consider conservative I could not get liberal support. In my view, the suggestion that Pelosi, is out of sync with American values, is not an insult - I think it is simply self-evident and some people have become very vocal about it.
---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
This sums it up. The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
You don't trust polls. Instead, you choose to rely on what you've heard from people in your vicinity, which is actually just an unscientifically sampled poll with a small, sample size and no rigorous quantitative analysis.
This is why it's hard to take your opinions seriously sometimes.
|
If it is raining, I don't check with a weatherman for him to tell me its raining. And if it is raining and he saz it ain't raining, I won't believe him. I don't care about his education, his scientific approach or whatever. That is how I live, call me what you will.
Also, on many of the polls there is a need to drill down. If a response is - its the economy. If you drill down with a follow-up you may find some real answers. Most polls in my view are superficial and are agenda driven. If you put blind faith in them - If I were you I would pause and reflect on that rather than attacking me.