Opinions

undertheice

Well-Known Member
conservatives and liberals both shit all over the constitution and the founding fathers wishes.

there are more than 2 parties people.
you should never confuse the concepts of conservatism and liberalism with the political hacks that choose to label themselves as such. all political parties play with the terms and twist their meanings in a dance with the electorate, but the two opposing forces are relatively constant among the people themselves. with one side forwarding the position that the individual must remain in control of his own destiny and the other that government and society must conquer the limitations of the individual by force, the differences seem rather obvious. the extra baggage of religion, aggression, ecological awareness and all the rest of it are of little consequence, they are merely diversions from the real message. the concepts within the constitution seem to favor the ideals of conservatism, even if its proponents within the bureaucracy do not.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
this is a little too simplistic and discounts the calculated greed and jealousy that is the motivating force behind the actions of liberal leaders as well as many of their disciples.
The methodologies are different, but greed is a constant if a human being is involved, no matter the political leanings.

But, one caveat, capitalism is the BEST protection from that greed. That's why I oppose liberal economic policies, they end up stripping the citizen of his best protection from the constant of greed.
 

medicineman

New Member
you should never confuse the concepts of conservatism and liberalism with the political hacks that choose to label themselves as such. all political parties play with the terms and twist their meanings in a dance with the electorate, but the two opposing forces are relatively constant among the people themselves. with one side forwarding the position that the individual must remain in control of his own destiny and the other that government and society must conquer the limitations of the individual by force, the differences seem rather obvious. the extra baggage of religion, aggression, ecological awareness and all the rest of it are of little consequence, they are merely diversions from the real message. the concepts within the constitution seem to favor the ideals of conservatism, even if its proponents within the bureaucracy do not.
I just don't get you. You label people and then deride them to the bone. Are you just a grumpy old fart? Maybe all "liberals" are not that bad, just as all "conservatives" are not shitheads, although most on this site appear to be.
 

Leothwyn

Well-Known Member
As soon as I saw that this thread was by RickWhite, I knew it was going start with another one of his insightful (inciteful?) diatribes. Somehow, I couldn't resist clicking it though.

Someone mentioned that Rick has the perspective of someone insulated by wealth and privilege... I can see how you'd think that, but to me he seems more like the type who listens to way too much right wing political entertainment, and somehow takes it as a reflection of reality. The Limbaugh-Beck kind of stuff, that boils down (dumbs down) everything so that it won't require too much thought, and is extra inflammatory (entertaining).

I also wanted to comment on the notion that liberals often grow up to be conservatives (but less often the opposite happens). I can see how Rick would take that to mean that conservatism comes from the wisdom of experience and age. Maybe so, but there is another explanation... I'll play the RickWhite here, and oversimplify and generalize for a minute:

YOUTH: still figuring out who they are; very adaptable; willing and able to embrace change.
OLD FOLKS: have mostly figured out who they are; stuck in their ways; threatened by too much change.

LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES: pro change and progress.
CONSERVATIVES: against change (unless it takes us backwards - to the good old [comfortable] times).

See any similarities in those groups?

Unbridled idealism... not so good. Stagnation and clinging to what's comfortable... no better.
Luckily, the extremes balance each other out, and most of us are somewhere in the middle.

What scares me is people who are so sure that they have everything figured out, and are unable to put themselves into the shoes of others (and assume that the other side is nothing but idiotic and misguided). It's the accusation Rick levels at liberals, while doing it himself.
 

medicineman

New Member
As soon as I saw that this thread was by RickWhite, I knew it was going start with another one of his insightful (inciteful?) diatribes. Somehow, I couldn't resist clicking it though.

Someone mentioned that Rick has the perspective of someone insulated by wealth and privilege... I can see how you'd think that, but to me he seems more like the type who listens to way too much right wing political entertainment, and somehow takes it as a reflection of reality. The Limbaugh-Beck kind of stuff, that boils down (dumbs down) everything so that it won't require too much thought, and is extra inflammatory (entertaining).

I also wanted to comment on the notion that liberals often grow up to be conservatives (but less often the opposite happens). I can see how Rick would take that to mean that conservatism comes from the wisdom of experience and age. Maybe so, but there is another explanation... I'll play the RickWhite here, and oversimplify and generalize for a minute:

YOUTH: still figuring out who they are; very adaptable; willing and able to embrace change.
OLD FOLKS: have mostly figured out who they are; stuck in their ways; threatened by too much change.

LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES: pro change and progress.
CONSERVATIVES: against change (unless it takes us backwards - to the good old [comfortable] times).

See any similarities in those groups?

Unbridled idealism... not so good. Stagnation and clinging to what's comfortable... no better.
Luckily, the extremes balance each other out, and most of us are somewhere in the middle.

What scares me is people who are so sure that they have everything figured out, and are unable to put themselves into the shoes of others (and assume that the other side is nothing but idiotic and misguided). It's the accusation Rick levels at liberals, while doing it himself.
Yeah, it appears Rick is a dick alright.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
I just don't get you. You label people and then deride them to the bone. Are you just a grumpy old fart? Maybe all "liberals" are not that bad, just as all "conservatives" are not shitheads, although most on this site appear to be.
labeling people is no simple matter, but labeling the ideologies they adhere to is much more straightforward. just as the preachy morality of conservative figureheads is easily seen as nothing more than a thin veneer by their actions, so to is the altruistic caring of the liberal agenda belied by the means through which its proponents attempt to attain their ends. but none of that matters, it is the goal that matters and the path that is taken to reach it. being taken care of isn't enough, being able to take care of ourselves and being allowed to do so are of prime importance.

i don't doubt that you "just don't get" me and you probably never will. we aren't even fighting on the same battleground. while you rail against bosses and businesses from under whose thumb you could easily slip, the real battle is against the force of an omnipresent government from which there is no escape. while you whine about the unfairness of the natural state of man, others are trying to figure out how to use mankind's nature in the most positive way. while you propose forcing man into some preconceived mold, the real answer is to allow the better nature of man to emerge. are you beginning to get the picture? i doubt it.

grumpy old fart? possibly, though with little more than a half-century under my belt there are quite a few who wouldn't think i have put in enough time to deserve that title. i am, however, old enough to have become rather set in my ways, old enough to demand the liberty that is promised to all of us as citizens of this country. among those liberties is the right to be free of the unwarranted intrusion of government into my life. even though i have been sensible enough to limit my interaction with government and am relatively free of its clutches, the mere threat of nanny state regulations and being forced to support the government created under-class must be fought against. that so many of my fellow citizens are so willing to embrace those chains is a rather frightening prospect for someone like me. that so many people are perfectly willing to ignore the future repercussions of actions that do nothing more than engorge an already bloated state-dependent under-class points only to the decay that a growing system of entitlements has wrought in our society. once you realize the mess we are creating for ourselves, it's enough to make even a youngster grumpy.
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
I am curious though - can you explain in detail how these ideas of yours would be practical and would work.
Yes, I have "heard of" the Sherman Anti-trust Act but that has nothing to do with my point. I wasn't bitching about monopolies. I feel the influence PAC's and lobbyists have on legislation is too much. I understand the founding fathers were entrepeneurs, but they didn't give business a vote, and they did not anticipate the hundreds of millions of dollars a campaign could cost, and they did not anticipate the hundreds of millions of dollars business would contribute to those campaigns.

My solution: no campaign contributions from PACs or business. Simple. Either that or 100% publicly funded campaigns.

It's a lot easier to have money to make money. I don't know what statistics you are referencing, but the distribution of wealth in this country has changed in recent years. Don't ask me where I got that information, it's common knowledge. The wealthy are getting wealthier because they are wealthy.

You keep framing this discussion in terms of right vs left. It's not a left vs right discussion. I don't think democrats should get pac money either.

I was really addressing one of undertheice's comments when I said the conservative theory is too idealistic for implementation. undertheice agreed, but indicated that it was a goal to strive for. so, OK.

In my mind, I'm the pragmatist. The nation is in serious trouble. and IMO, it won't be helped by diminishing the governments role in everything and letting capitalism rule the roost. That was the condition of the country in 1776.
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Yes, I have "heard of" the Sherman Anti-trust Act but that has nothing to do with my point. I wasn't bitching about monopolies. I feel the influence PAC's and lobbyists have on legislation is too much. I understand the founding fathers were entrepeneurs, but they didn't give business a vote, and they did not anticipate the hundreds of millions of dollars a campaign could cost, and they did not anticipate the hundreds of millions of dollars business would contribute to those campaigns.

My solution: no campaign contributions from PACs or business. Simple. Either that or 100% publicly funded campaigns.

It's a lot easier to have money to make money. I don't know what statistics you are referencing, but the distribution of wealth in this country has changed in recent years. Don't ask me where I got that information, it's common knowledge. The wealthy are getting wealthier because they are wealthy.

You keep framing this discussion in terms of right vs left. It's not a left vs right discussion. I don't think democrats should get pac money either.

I was really addressing one of undertheice's comments when I said the conservative theory is too idealistic for implementation. undertheice agreed, but indicated that it was a goal to strive for. so, OK.

In my mind, I'm the pragmatist. The nation is in serious trouble. and IMO, it won't be helped by diminishing the governments role in everything and letting capitalism rule the roost. That was the condition of the country in 1776.
We all take issue with politicians being bought and paid for. And politicians turning around and buying votes with the promise of a chicken in every pot is a similar problem. Obama received more campaign money than any President in history and he is a wanton vote buyer. Buying votes is the mainstay of the Democratic agenda. The strategy is to keep them coming back to the welfare troff - but I don't want to get off on a tangent.

As stated, we all take issue with special interests. The problem is that we all have free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. Since business' are privately owned, the rights afforded to people do extend to business'. In fact, the Constitution says that no man shall be deprived of his property except by due process. Since a business is a man's property, it is specifically protected by the Constitution. And the aspirations of that business are also protected by law.

In the end, I see where you are coming from and I agree in general. But each and every time we consider changing any Government policy, we have to carefully study the most minute calculus of the issue and we have to consider every possible outcome.

Changing laws or policies is much like the movie "Butterfly Effect," when they go back in time and radically change the future. One single error or omission can have sweeping consequences.
 

medicineman

New Member
labeling people is no simple matter, but labeling the ideologies they adhere to is much more straightforward. just as the preachy morality of conservative figureheads is easily seen as nothing more than a thin veneer by their actions, so to is the altruistic caring of the liberal agenda belied by the means through which its proponents attempt to attain their ends. but none of that matters, it is the goal that matters and the path that is taken to reach it. being taken care of isn't enough, being able to take care of ourselves and being allowed to do so are of prime importance.

i don't doubt that you "just don't get" me and you probably never will. we aren't even fighting on the same battleground. while you rail against bosses and businesses from under whose thumb you could easily slip, the real battle is against the force of an omnipresent government from which there is no escape. while you whine about the unfairness of the natural state of man, others are trying to figure out how to use mankind's nature in the most positive way. while you propose forcing man into some preconceived mold, the real answer is to allow the better nature of man to emerge. are you beginning to get the picture? i doubt it.

grumpy old fart? possibly, though with little more than a half-century under my belt there are quite a few who wouldn't think i have put in enough time to deserve that title. i am, however, old enough to have become rather set in my ways, old enough to demand the liberty that is promised to all of us as citizens of this country. among those liberties is the right to be free of the unwarranted intrusion of government into my life. even though i have been sensible enough to limit my interaction with government and am relatively free of its clutches, the mere threat of nanny state regulations and being forced to support the government created under-class must be fought against. that so many of my fellow citizens are so willing to embrace those chains is a rather frightening prospect for someone like me. that so many people are perfectly willing to ignore the future repercussions of actions that do nothing more than engorge an already bloated state-dependent under-class points only to the decay that a growing system of entitlements has wrought in our society. once you realize the mess we are creating for ourselves, it's enough to make even a youngster grumpy.
So, you are a paranoid grumpy middle age man then? It seems that you are really afreid of liberals. Mello out, we won't hurt you. I have no intentions of harming you. Live your life to the fullest and quit worrying so much. In fact, PM me your phone number and I'll gladly give you a call before ever coming to harm you. I'd certainly want you to be forwarned. You are a strange creature, that's in the factual plane. BTW, you and I are not that different, although you make great noise proclaiming we are.. fact is, neither one of us can really change a goddamn thing, so you are where you are and I am where I am, so what?
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Midicineman, that is not the first time I have heard you imply thinly veiled threats to people on this board - you need to stop.

We all know that you feel that you are a victim of the "evil establishment" and we get it. Every one of your posts is exactly like the last, and none of them contribute anything to either side of the argument. Since you have absolutely nothing to add save for hot air, I ask that you stop posting in my threads.
 

medicineman

New Member
Midicineman, that is not the first time I have heard you imply thinly veiled threats to people on this board - you need to stop.

We all know that you feel that you are a victim of the "evil establishment" and we get it. Every one of your posts is exactly like the last, and none of them contribute anything to either side of the argument. Since you have absolutely nothing to add save for hot air, I ask that you stop posting in my threads.
You are a fucking idiot. There was no threat, that was just bullshitting. I intend no-one on this site any harm. He was insinuating that me as a liberal was doing harm to him as a conservative by the fact that I was a liberal. Read the whole scenario before jumping in with your insults. I repeat for you that are dense, I intend no harm to anyone, BTW how could I ever find any of you idiots anyway? I am not that computer savvy to look up ISP addresses and find you, so quit worrying, relax, I'm not a danger to anyone on this site. Now if we were in person and you acted like the idiot you seem to be, things could be different. If you were my boss, and acted like you do on this site, I'm sure we'd have a problem. Pure conjecture, don't you agree, or are you in fear of me?
Geeze, I'm a 69 year old, arthritic ridden old fart, not too scary now, eh?
BTW, stay off your threads? The boss thingy, just cant shake it eh? I believe it is allowed for me or anyone on this site to post on any thread they choose, sorry charlie. Just because you don't like me, or what you suppose I am does not give you power to stop me from posting. I will post on every thread you start. I'll make it my goal to not miss one.
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
Midicineman, that is not the first time I have heard you imply thinly veiled threats to people on this board - you need to stop.

We all know that you feel that you are a victim of the "evil establishment" and we get it. Every one of your posts is exactly like the last, and none of them contribute anything to either side of the argument. Since you have absolutely nothing to add save for hot air, I ask that you stop posting in my threads.
I think you misinterpreted the MM. I really do.
 

PVS

Active Member
Midicineman, that is not the first time I have heard you imply thinly veiled threats to people on this board - you need to stop.

We all know that you feel that you are a victim of the "evil establishment" and we get it. Every one of your posts is exactly like the last, and none of them contribute anything to either side of the argument. Since you have absolutely nothing to add save for hot air, I ask that you stop posting in my threads.
maybe he should be banned for posting in 'your' threads.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
PVS, ur credibility is better preserved for posting when ur on the right side of an issue.

Everyone has seen Med Man's crazy posts before, RW is 100% accurate .... which makes you seem foolish and petty.

And it is his thread ... or aren't you familiar with this forum after 800+ posts?
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Now if we were in person and you acted like the idiot you seem to be, things could be different.

Geeze, I'm a 69 year old, arthritic ridden old fart, not too scary now, eh?


If you are a 69 year old fart as you put it and I did act like an idiot in person what the hell would you do about it? Seems like your first sentence implies you would be prepared to do something about it. Or is that just my misinterpreting the clear and obvious meaning of words?



If you were my boss, and acted like you do on this site, I'm sure we'd have a problem.
You know, maybe it is good to have you here - your words are like manna from heaven for those that disagree with you.

"We would have a problem" huh? And pray tell what type of "problem" would we have?

You see, employable people who keep jobs know they have two options when they think their boss is an ass - they suck it up and deal with it or they quit and find another job.

Only Losers with shit attitudes, who lack adequate social skills and never learned how to deal with workplace conflict or etiquette would respond to their dislike of their boss in a manner that would result in a "problem."

See, that is the difference between how winners and losers see the world. Quite Frankly, if I was your boss (which would never happen) I would treat you like a subordinate and if you didn't like it I would can your ass. And if we did have a "problem" I would pick you up by the scruff of your neck and physically remove you from my property - no problem.

One would think after 69 years you would finely develop an understanding of how the world works. Evidently, not in your case.
 
Top