LSUGradin99, there's a really great outtake from the movie "Pulp Fiction", where Uma Thurman tells John Travolta that there are two kinds of people in the world: Beatles people and Elvis people. Now, according to Uma, you can be a fan of both Elvis and the Beatles - but at some point, somewhere down the line...you're gonna have to make a choice. It's really an allegory for life. You can be as moderate as you like, but in the final analysis, there is conservatism and there is liberalism...and no matter how middle-of-the-road you claim to be, you're going to eventually lean to one side or the other on a consistent basis. That's just how it is. Your post actually makes my point for me...there's really not as much "gray area" out there as people would have you believe, yet by a wide margin, the people out there who are trying to convince you that there is a lot of "gray area" will lean to the liberal side...you can make make book on that. Let me put it this way...there's a lot greater chance that the woman who is the subject of this thread is a liberal than a conservative. Can you disagree with that?
just saying that doesnt make it true. why? do you support firefighters? are you a firefighter? rex, you have said this many times, and i always ask you to explain it, and you never do, you just say it again, as if the act of typing it makes it true. why must a person actually be the person doing the thing they support? how many logical counterexamples are you going to need before you realize this is a stupid irrational argument?
not necessarily. because the positions that are considered "liberal" and "conservative" are not philosophically consistent. i favor freedom from government intervention, i am mostly consistent with that view. that mean i am for less taxes, as well as less social restriction. so i favor legalization of drugs as well as legal abortions. i want most everything to be legal, including hookers and gambling (and if i get stopped from buying alcohol on a sunday one more time i am gonna go postal, mother****ing goddamnit). i want the government to stop taking my money for social security and farm subsidies. if gays want to get married, i am not gonna stop them. i dont give a damn what they do. i dont want the government to have any say over marriage, including straight marriage. i am more liberal than anyone on abortion, i love abortion, because i do not favor the government intervening like republicans do. my view is consistent from one issue to the next. pick the side that involves the government interfering less and i take that side. most of today''s "conservatives" are not consistent. they favor less government involvement in fiscal policy, but more in social policy. they want an amendment banning gay marriage. what a total waste of time. that is not a small government policy. governments are supposed to keep order, not outlaw things because they are disgusting. i suppose you can see where this is going. i think traditional conservatives are on the right track except religion ruins them, as well as the fact that they do not go nearly far enough to keep the government out of our lives. so i disagree, because the simple continuum of liberal and conservative is an inaccurate depiction of the political spectrum.
Republicans and Democrats... as well as most Libertarians suck. Our political machine is out of control. Instead of standing for something, our politicians are now lining up on either side of an imaginary line. I would love to dissolve the party system and just have individuals run on their merit, experience and ideas.... not their affiliations and wallet size. Add: Would also restrict politicians to one term per position. This I believe would curve the importance of being re elected, and the politician may actually spend time doing something of stature while in that office. (would also make each office 4 year terms across the board but still staggered like they are now) but this is a pipe dream.
When you come up with a logical counterexample, martin, I'll consider it. In point of fact, I SHOULD volunteer for firefighter duty. So how does that help your argument?
I think you are way off base here. Tell me, am I liberal because I am anti-war in Iraq, or am I conservative because I support the global war on terror. Am I conservative because I oppose abortion or liberal because I oppose the death penalty in most cases? Am I liberal because I belive in the capital gains tax or conservative because I support small government. It is not logical to say someone cannot be moderate. I vote not based on the R or D next to the name, but for the issues a candidate stands for. Far too many people vote R or D.
why are you not employed as a firefighter? when you are a firefighter, as well as a garbageman and a cop and every other person who performs the tasks you are in favor of being performed, then you will have a case. but as it stands, some people are soldiers, some are scientists, some are firemen, some are doctors. see, we have this system where not everyone has to do every single task that they support. in this way, i can favor soldiers going to war, and doctors healing patients, while not being either of those things myself. see how that works? simple eh? i will explain it one more time, because i see you are slow to figure this out. i favor cops enforcing the law. however, i am not a cop, nor is my status as a non-cop relevant to my favoring them performing a task i support. get it? i am not a politician or soldier or the president. but i still support the tasks these fellas have chosen to perform, even though i am not actually perfoming those tasks myself. your statement: "If you support a war, if you're able-bodied, you should VOLUNTEER." logical breakdown: "if a person supports task X, and is able to perform task x, they should personally perform task X" if this is a logically true statement, the variables dont matter. counterexample: "if a person supports the genome project, and is able to help the genome project, they should work on the genome project" see, this is a flawed statement, because if it were true, every biological scientist in the world should work on the genome project. but there are other tasks to perform, and also no one has any responsibilty to do anything except not hurt others. where am i wrong rex? it sucks when people's poltics leads them to such foolishness that you have to explain things to them like they were 4 years old. you have been asked three times why a person "should" personally fight in wars they support, and you do not answer. i realize this is an argument you have been brainwashed with, but i hope you have enough intellectual tenacity in your brain to free yourself from this nonsense.
