illegal immigrants - steeler - Jun 19, 2018 - 3:20pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Queue - Jun 19, 2018 - 3:20pm
 
Answers Only - aflanigan - Jun 19, 2018 - 3:11pm
 
Unattractive celebrities you'd date - edieraye - Jun 19, 2018 - 2:54pm
 
Things You Thought Today - PoundPuppy - Jun 19, 2018 - 2:36pm
 
What Makes You Sad? - Kev__P - Jun 19, 2018 - 2:01pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jun 19, 2018 - 1:59pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Kev__P - Jun 19, 2018 - 1:59pm
 
Apple Watch Funtionality - pjjameso - Jun 19, 2018 - 1:43pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - GeneP59 - Jun 19, 2018 - 1:04pm
 
Trump - R_P - Jun 19, 2018 - 12:21pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - Proclivities - Jun 19, 2018 - 10:51am
 
Great guitar faces - Proclivities - Jun 19, 2018 - 10:07am
 
THE Question of Our Time - pigtail - Jun 19, 2018 - 9:26am
 
Counting with Pictures - pigtail - Jun 19, 2018 - 9:24am
 
Even In The Quietest Moments - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 19, 2018 - 9:01am
 
RP3 Beta Player - CCinSB - Jun 19, 2018 - 8:29am
 
Economix - R_P - Jun 18, 2018 - 11:38pm
 
Beer - Blackbirds - Jun 18, 2018 - 10:48pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jun 18, 2018 - 7:58pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - kurtster - Jun 18, 2018 - 5:48pm
 
Voter Registration Fraud - R_P - Jun 18, 2018 - 5:20pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Jun 18, 2018 - 3:59pm
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 18, 2018 - 11:35am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 17, 2018 - 8:23pm
 
Back to the 30's - R_P - Jun 17, 2018 - 4:37pm
 
Back to the 70's - R_P - Jun 17, 2018 - 2:33pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - helenofjoy - Jun 17, 2018 - 1:19pm
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Jun 17, 2018 - 8:51am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - Proclivities - Jun 17, 2018 - 7:30am
 
Cannot login with Android app - tortdog - Jun 17, 2018 - 6:06am
 
Google Home - jarro - Jun 17, 2018 - 1:38am
 
Live Music - R_P - Jun 16, 2018 - 6:07pm
 
Celebrity Deaths - islander - Jun 16, 2018 - 1:40pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Jun 16, 2018 - 1:39pm
 
Israel - R_P - Jun 16, 2018 - 1:34pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - fractalv - Jun 16, 2018 - 11:40am
 
HomeKit HomePod AppleTV - Steely_D - Jun 16, 2018 - 10:28am
 
RP on Amazon Echo - Baktus - Jun 16, 2018 - 7:36am
 
World Music - R_P - Jun 16, 2018 - 7:35am
 
Poll: Would you play RP at a house party? - ih8bills - Jun 16, 2018 - 6:55am
 
Free Mp3s - R_P - Jun 15, 2018 - 12:37pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - SeriousLee - Jun 15, 2018 - 11:37am
 
Tales from the RAFT - SeriousLee - Jun 15, 2018 - 11:34am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - SeriousLee - Jun 15, 2018 - 11:17am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jun 15, 2018 - 11:06am
 
PSD isn't working ...AGAIN (*sigh) - LowPhreak - Jun 15, 2018 - 11:01am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - cc_rider - Jun 15, 2018 - 9:42am
 
Penny and Sparrow - wadeldro - Jun 15, 2018 - 8:50am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jun 15, 2018 - 6:14am
 
What Are You Grateful For? - Coaxial - Jun 15, 2018 - 6:13am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - olivertwist - Jun 15, 2018 - 6:04am
 
I Feel Good - SeriousLee - Jun 15, 2018 - 2:31am
 
Classical Music - kcar - Jun 15, 2018 - 12:39am
 
Flower Pictures - Antigone - Jun 14, 2018 - 5:26pm
 
Questions. - pigtail - Jun 14, 2018 - 2:39pm
 
Did you hear this story? - kurtster - Jun 14, 2018 - 10:26am
 
What Did You Do Today? - Coaxial - Jun 14, 2018 - 10:05am
 
Celebrities Who Have Managed to Kill Their Own Careers - meower - Jun 14, 2018 - 9:09am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - cc_rider - Jun 14, 2018 - 8:52am
 
Autism Issues - meower - Jun 14, 2018 - 7:22am
 
North Korea - R_P - Jun 13, 2018 - 11:49pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Jun 13, 2018 - 6:17pm
 
Military Matters - R_P - Jun 13, 2018 - 6:10pm
 
"Him Too" - R_P - Jun 13, 2018 - 5:53pm
 
Name My Band - Red_Dragon - Jun 13, 2018 - 5:39pm
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - R_P - Jun 13, 2018 - 5:35pm
 
A motivational quote - Tahtohnkah - Jun 13, 2018 - 2:02pm
 
Protest Songs - rhahl - Jun 13, 2018 - 1:32pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Jun 13, 2018 - 1:02pm
 
Breaking News - pigtail - Jun 13, 2018 - 10:37am
 
Net Neutrality - Proclivities - Jun 13, 2018 - 6:57am
 
Lowell - meower - Jun 13, 2018 - 6:54am
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - BlueHeronDruid - Jun 12, 2018 - 10:49pm
 
MoveOn.org/George Soros Watch - R_P - Jun 12, 2018 - 8:44pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » MoveOn.org/George Soros Watch Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post to this Topic
R_P
Oînk, oînk, OÎNK!
R_P Avatar



Posted: Jun 12, 2018 - 8:44pm

Roseanne Barr Apologizes to George Soros for Calling Him a Nazi
Mugro
Grateful
Mugro Avatar

Location: It's always sunny in Kabul
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Leo
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Jun 8, 2005 - 4:21pm

I guess if you are to be a prote$ter for hire, you had better get your facts straight first....


No, not that Mike Rogers

By ANDREW ENGEL
A protest organized June 1 by MoveOn, a liberal political action committee, drew about 20 people to the Michigan Avenue office of U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton. Demonstrators protested Rogers’ ties to embattled House Majority Leader Tom Delay.

There was only one problem: They had the wrong Mike Rogers.

Whoops.

The group came armed with financial records from a Web site that detailed various financial contributions between the two Republicans, including a $20,000 campaign contribution from DeLay to Rogers as well as a $5,000 contribution by Rogers to DeLay’s legal defense fund.

However, the Mike Rogers involved was not the Michigan congressman, but rather Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.

Federal Election Commission filings show that Michigan’s Rogers did receive $15,000 from DeLay’s PAC, but not the $20,000 that the other Mike Rogers received.

Michigan’s Rogers has not contributed to DeLay’s legal defense fund, according to Conor Kenny of Public Citizen, a non-profit watchdog group.



Rogers, R-Mich. (Above)
Rogers, R-Ala. (Below)

The Web site houseofscandal.org, where the information was gathered, apparently posted inaccurate information.

"It’s unfortunate that they made an error," said Bill Rittenberg, a protest organizer.

Democrat Bob Alexander, who ran against Michigan’s Rogers in 2004, also participated in the event.

"It’s unfortunate that we had this inaccuracy," Alexander said. "We didn’t attempt to mislead anyone."

Sylvia Warner, press secretary for Michigan’s Rogers, said her boss and the Alabama congressman are frequently confused with each other.

"We get each other’s mail and each other’s calls from reporters," Warner said, adding people should be more careful not to confuse the two lawmakers.

The protesters delivered a petition signed by 1,166 voters in Rogers’ Michigan district asking him and other Republicans to disassociate themselves from DeLay.

DeLay, R-Tex, has been the center of several recent ethics scandals. The House Ethics Committee has admonished him three times, and questions concerning trips financed by special interest groups continue to hound him.

The discrepancy between the numbers has not affected Rittenberg and Alexander’s opinion on the petition, however.
"Tom DeLay is the core of it," Rittenberg said. "I think it’s a sound petition."

Alexander, meanwhile, said the overall effect of "a few dollars here and a few dollars there" was not relevant to Rogers of Michigan’s ties to DeLay.

Warner would not comment on the actual protest.




Maybe George Soros should pay more. He might get more intelligent prote$ters.
R_P
Oînk, oînk, OÎNK!
R_P Avatar



Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 5:32pm

ankhara99 wrote:
Didn't Dilbert work for one of those???

I am sure many recognize the 'truth' of Dilbert... ;)

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern" - C.S. Lewis
ankhara99
Taking a new direction
ankhara99 Avatar

Location: Over the Rainbow
Gender: Female
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 5:23pm

RichardPrins wrote:
And bureaucracy of course is just as prevalent in private organizations and corporations...


Didn't Dilbert work for one of those???
R_P
Oînk, oînk, OÎNK!
R_P Avatar



Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 2:29pm

And bureaucracy of course is just as prevalent in private organizations and corporations...
ankhara99
Taking a new direction
ankhara99 Avatar

Location: Over the Rainbow
Gender: Female
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 1:20pm

AphidA wrote:

My view is that, when possible, the desires of the "larger collective", the individual, and every smaller collective in between should be handled through private organizations rather than government. I believe that government is fundamentally unable to execute (beyond a certain point). It's bureacratic nature cannot escape itself and its own diminishing returns. It is not nimble nor creative. I think that we have a wealth of resources and energy in the private sector to fill any void left by a retreating government.

So, what I'm saying is that the government doesn't necessarily have the right or duty to protect certain things. However, the people may. And I, for one, do not equate "the people" with "the government".


I agree with not equating "the people" with "the government". However, when you have situations like, say air pollution. Actually, here is the perfect example:

In 1970, American industry was polluting the air so badly that acid rain was falling on Canada to the point where it was impacting their timber industry. Canada threatened to close its borders on January 1, 1971 if America did not legislate air pollution regulations. On December 31st, 1970 Congress was in session promulgating those rules.

My point is this: In many instances, especially ones dealing with pollution, the effects of even a small group can be devasting on the larger collective. And in those instances an entity BIGGER than business, bigger than industry, bigger than a state is needed to say "cut that crap out!".

I would LOVE to see smaller government. I would LOVE to see fiscally responsible government. But in some instances, a larger entity with the power to put people in jail and fine the hell outta them is necessary to get results.

I wish in my example that it hadn't taken the action of the Canadian government to stir our government to action, but I am glad that something did!
AphidA

AphidA Avatar

Location: Washington, DC area
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 12:38pm

ankhara99 wrote:
But in your view, should the federal government have the right, or even some might argue the duty, to protect certain lands known for their wild beauty or the habitats they include, to the exclusion of say the local timber industry that would prefer to log the whole thing into farm fields?

In other words, there's a conflict between individual freedom, locally collective freedom and the good of the larger collective.

Some Libertarians argue to the extreme for individual freedom. I'm glad to see this isn't where you're coming from. However, I'm wondering where your balance point is regarding the good of the larger collective, vs. individual or local collective freedoms.

My view is that, when possible, the desires of the "larger collective", the individual, and every smaller collective in between should be handled through private organizations rather than government. I believe that government is fundamentally unable to execute (beyond a certain point). It's bureacratic nature cannot escape itself and its own diminishing returns. It is not nimble nor creative. I think that we have a wealth of resources and energy in the private sector to fill any void left by a retreating government.

So, what I'm saying is that the government doesn't necessarily have the right or duty to protect certain things. However, the people may. And I, for one, do not equate "the people" with "the government".
ankhara99
Taking a new direction
ankhara99 Avatar

Location: Over the Rainbow
Gender: Female
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 12:14pm

AphidA wrote:

Personally, I prefer to see the federal government sell off a good amount of the land it owns. I think it represents something like a third of all the land in the U.S. That's too much. How much is too much? I don't know. That's all I can say since I'm not too conversant on this issue.


But in your view, should the federal government have the right, or even some might argue the duty, to protect certain lands known for their wild beauty or the habitats they include, to the exclusion of say the local timber industry that would prefer to log the whole thing into farm fields?

In other words, there's a conflict between individual freedom, locally collective freedom and the good of the larger collective.

Some Libertarians argue to the extreme for individual freedom. I'm glad to see this isn't where you're coming from. However, I'm wondering where your balance point is regarding the good of the larger collective, vs. individual or local collective freedoms.
coding_to_music
Sometimes I forget there is a war going on
coding_to_music Avatar

Location: Beantown
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 12:10pm

ankhara99 wrote:
OK, I'm glad to see your rational view on that matter. However, lets make the question more realistic and more rooted in states vs. federal rights. How do you feel about the federal government protecting wild lands and national forests? Should it be the pervue of, say the people who live in Wyoming to protect (or not) Yellowstone? Or should that responsibility fall to a federal entity?


Is it a woman's right to choose, or the United States ?
Is it Wyoming's right to choose, or the United States ?
Is it Nevada's right to reject the nation's nuclear waste, or the United States?
AphidA

AphidA Avatar

Location: Washington, DC area
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 12:07pm

ankhara99 wrote:
OK, I'm glad to see your rational view on that matter. However, lets make the question more realistic and more rooted in states vs. federal rights. How do you feel about the federal government protecting wild lands and national forests? Should it be the pervue of, say the people who live in Wyoming to protect (or not) Yellowstone? Or should that responsibility fall to a federal entity?

Personally, I prefer to see the federal government sell off a good amount of the land it owns. I think it represents something like a third of all the land in the U.S. That's too much. How much is too much? I don't know. That's all I can say since I'm not too conversant on this issue.
rgj13
Everything.
rgj13 Avatar

Location: The City
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 12:01pm

ankhara99 wrote:

Should it be the pervue of, say the people who live in Wyoming to protect (or not) Yellowstone? Or should that responsibility fall to a federal entity?

Well, that park is also in Idaho and Montana, but I see your point.
ankhara99
Taking a new direction
ankhara99 Avatar

Location: Over the Rainbow
Gender: Female
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 11:51am

AphidA wrote:

On your query:
There are extremes to every ideology and I don't consider myself an extreme libertarian. I think that property rights are extremely important; however, in most cases, I don't believe I should be able to devalue your property rights simply by virtue of my singular desire to construct a huge tower of sh*t on my plot. So, all of these ideologies need to be injected with rationalism and pragmatism in order to be functional in the real world.


OK, I'm glad to see your rational view on that matter. However, lets make the question more realistic and more rooted in states vs. federal rights. How do you feel about the federal government protecting wild lands and national forests? Should it be the pervue of, say the people who live in Wyoming to protect (or not) Yellowstone? Or should that responsibility fall to a federal entity?
AphidA

AphidA Avatar

Location: Washington, DC area
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 11:47am

coding_to_music wrote:
That's a good link (although I disagree with many of Cato's positions)
What has blinded many Libertarians is that they obsess about NOT being or liking democrats, so they just assume that the Republicans must be good because Repubs oppose democrats. Meanwhile, a libertarian with any sophistication can see that the Republicans are doing many anti-libertarian things -- such as expansion of fed govt, imbalance of budget, balooning debt, invasion of privacy (Patriot Act), invasion of privacy (woman's right to choose, health care decisions, morning-after pill), increasing health care costs by preventing collective barganing with pharma companies by medicare, war-mongering wars of agression (Iraq). So, as long as the dems are not in power the libertarians are gleeful, while ignoring that the issues they supposedly care about are being wrecked by the republicans. Distinction without a difference.

Here is a query that was ignored by a Libertarian in another forum a few months ago:
Should I be able to put my auto-body shop next to your home, right up to the property line, and pollute your well water and the air your children breathe ? My guess is that query is simply too troubling for a libertarian to acknowledge, since it would recognize that we can't just have unlimited freedom, that government protections help us all.

The libertarian ranks sometimes seem composed of more conservative types than liberal types. My personal theory though is that this is because of the relative importance of views among "liberals" and "conservatives" (e.g., many conservatives define their conservatism as economic conservatism and aren't threatened by social freedoms). And, liberals identity seems to be tied most to economic equality, which is at odds with economic freedom.

On your query:
There are extremes to every ideology and I don't consider myself an extreme libertarian. I think that property rights are extremely important; however, in most cases, I don't believe I should be able to devalue your property rights simply by virtue of my singular desire to construct a huge tower of sh*t on my plot. So, all of these ideologies need to be injected with rationalism and pragmatism in order to be functional in the real world.
coding_to_music
Sometimes I forget there is a war going on
coding_to_music Avatar

Location: Beantown
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 11:14am

AphidA wrote:

Libertarians are all around you, dude. They just don't know it. They probably call themselves moderates. But anyway...

See this for one major libertarian voice re: your Patriot Act comment. There are some mild libertarians who have less of an issue with the Act, which only points back to my discussion on nuances of opinion. They may still be way more libertarian than conservative.


That's a good link (although I disagree with many of Cato's positions)
What has blinded many Libertarians is that they obsess about NOT being or liking democrats, so they just assume that the Republicans must be good because Repubs oppose democrats. Meanwhile, a libertarian with any sophistication can see that the Republicans are doing many anti-libertarian things -- such as expansion of fed govt, imbalance of budget, balooning debt, invasion of privacy (Patriot Act), invasion of privacy (woman's right to choose, health care decisions, morning-after pill), increasing health care costs by preventing collective barganing with pharma companies by medicare, war-mongering wars of agression (Iraq). So, as long as the dems are not in power the libertarians are gleeful, while ignoring that the issues they supposedly care about are being wrecked by the republicans. Distinction without a difference.

Here is a query that was ignored by a Libertarian in another forum a few months ago:
Should I be able to put my auto-body shop next to your home, right up to the property line, and pollute your well water and the air your children breathe ? My guess is that query is simply too troubling for a libertarian to acknowledge, since it would recognize that we can't just have unlimited freedom, that government protections help us all.
AphidA

AphidA Avatar

Location: Washington, DC area
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 10:46am

coding_to_music wrote:
The first place I've had much contact with people who call themselves Libertarians is RP

And it ain't pretty...

Basically they seem to support everything that the republicans do

A distinction without a difference, as the saying goes

For example, why are they not outraged about the Patriot Act ?

My sneaking suspision is that they don't read any of the articles that are posted here. Anyone who does read them has *got* to be influenced by them.

Similar to comments like "Rush and O'Reily and Hannity and Al Frankin are all just the same"
My response to that is that they obvously have not listened to Al Frankin, because he is very different -- Fact-Based instead of idealogical / Faith based.

Overall, my experience is that people are not purswaded of things, no-one ever changes... (except the impressionable young)

Libertarians are all around you, dude. They just don't know it. They probably call themselves moderates. But anyway...

See this for one major libertarian voice re: your Patriot Act comment. There are some mild libertarians who have less of an issue with the Act, which only points back to my discussion on nuances of opinion. They may still be way more libertarian than conservative.
coding_to_music
Sometimes I forget there is a war going on
coding_to_music Avatar

Location: Beantown
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 10:31am

steeler wrote:
My comment on it being amorphous is based more upon my own experiences with folk who identify themselves as Libertarians and define their beliefs in widely differing ways. They usually get down to saying they are generally liberal on social issues, and generally conservative on fiscal issues. Doesn't tell us much. And they say they are for less federal government, and more individual freedom. Again, doesn't say much. The whole notion of being for more or less federal government has to be evaluated by examining the details. What should the government fund, and what should it not? Some Libertarians go almost to the mat, and say there should not even be any national defense. Others say that is okay. The Republicans have made a cottage industry of assailing Democrats for being in favor of Big Government. I have no idea what the heck that means. I don't mean to be flip, but the one thing that seems to unite a lot of Libertarians is their belief that they should not have to pay federal income taxes.


The first place I've had much contact with people who call themselves Libertarians is RP

And it ain't pretty...

Basically they seem to support everything that the republicans do

A distinction without a difference, as the saying goes

For example, why are they not outraged about the Patriot Act ?

My sneaking suspision is that they don't read any of the articles that are posted here. Anyone who does read them has *got* to be influenced by them.

Similar to comments like "Rush and O'Reily and Hannity and Al Frankin are all just the same"
My response to that is that they obvously have not listened to Al Frankin, because he is very different -- Fact-Based instead of idealogical / Faith based.

Overall, my experience is that people are not purswaded of things, no-one ever changes... (except the impressionable young)
AphidA

AphidA Avatar

Location: Washington, DC area
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 10:21am

steeler wrote:
Agree with the latter point -- that we need to break out of the 2-party system. Here, we are talking the dominance of the Democratic and Republican parties, and the reluctance of many to vote for a 3rd party because of the belief that it is a wasted vote to not vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning. Then it devolves into the lesser-of-2-evils syndrome. I often have voted for 3rd party candidates. Sometimes I do it because I actually prefer that candidate. Other times I do it because I do not like either the Dem or Repub and a vote for a 3rd party candidate -- any 3rd party candidate -- can only help break the logjam.

The former point confuses me. Because there, we are talking about general, amorphous labels -- liberals and conservatives (although most people tend to associate the former with Democrats and he latter with Republicans, I think it is a mistake to do so. That is what we need to break away from is lockstep, rote thinking when it comes to political/cultural issues). And you want to add a 3rd equally inappropriate label. If it is part of a strategy for transitioning to a relatively label-free political/cultural environment, this may make some sense. It may make you feel good to say I am a libertarian -- which seems to mean only that you do not consider yourself to be either liberal or conservative -- but it also seems not to serve any other purpose. I don't see how substituting one general, amorphous label for another helps matters.

"Labels", in music for example, are often misnomers and sometimes utterly useless. But I can cut through a lot of crap by saying I identify with this or that. That's all I was trying to say about that I guess. In reference to liberal:conservative and democrat:republican though, I think you are right about them being misapplied to each other. Sure, there is a lot of correlation, but it's an issue-by-issue and perspective association. In the end, the natural tendency could be to dismantle the labeling all-together (because of the nuance), but the parties would always have their labels in order to co-opt as much of the volume of labels/opinions as possible.

On the 3rd party dillema, I think that in our current format, a vote for a 3rd party is often symbolic. What I have in mind is a national run-off of sorts (essentially 2 "elections" alleviating the 3rd party issue).

not sure i've added much, so i better get back to work ;-)
steeler
About three bricks shy of a load
steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 10:11am

AphidA wrote:

Adding another label is at least more accurate that only having two. I identify more so with libertarian values than I do with conservative values. So, the label is meaningful to me.

However, and more importantly, we should expand the de facto two party system we have, which is far too constraining to the range of opinions we hold in the U.S. I believe there are intelligent and elegant ways to destroy the two party strangehold.


Agree with the latter point -- that we need to break out of the 2-party system. Here, we are talking the dominance of the Democratic and Republican parties, and the reluctance of many to vote for a 3rd party because of the belief that it is a wasted vote to not vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning. Then it devolves into the lesser-of-2-evils syndrome. I often have voted for 3rd party candidates. Sometimes I do it because I actually prefer that candidate. Other times I do it because I do not like either the Dem or Repub and a vote for a 3rd party candidate -- any 3rd party candidate -- can only help break the logjam.

The former point confuses me. Because there, we are talking about general, amorphous labels -- liberals and conservatives (although most people tend to associate the former with Democrats and he latter with Republicans, I think it is a mistake to do so. That is what we need to break away from is lockstep, rote thinking when it comes to political/cultural issues). And you want to add a 3rd equally inappropriate label. If it is part of a strategy for transitioning to a relatively label-free political/cultural environment, this may make some sense. It may make you feel good to say I am a libertarian -- which seems to mean only that you do not consider yourself to be either liberal or conservative -- but it also seems not to serve any other purpose. I don't see how substituting one general, amorphous label for another helps matters.
AphidA

AphidA Avatar

Location: Washington, DC area
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 10:01am

steeler wrote:
Exactly. So why the need to come up with yet another collective label that doesn't quite fit?

Adding another label is at least more accurate that only having two. I identify more so with libertarian values than I do with conservative values. So, the label is meaningful to me.

However, and more importantly, we should expand the de facto two party system we have, which is far too constraining to the range of opinions we hold in the U.S. I believe there are intelligent and elegant ways to destroy the two party strangehold.
steeler
About three bricks shy of a load
steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Jun 2, 2005 - 9:46am

AphidA wrote:

Well, I think being "all over the map" is a function of breaking outside of the 2-dimensional continuum. I believe that most of us do not fit on the liberal-conservative continuum. We take each issue independently against our personal set of values.


Exactly. So why the need to come up with yet another collective label that doesn't quite fit?
Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next