Where are the non-partisans and real people in the middle?

[presluc]

I'm more moderate than people give me credit for. I think it's hard for any moderate not to look back and think....man that Iraq war has made me safer, the Bush tax cuts have really helped the economy, and deregulation has made my life better.

Strange, as an Independent looking back it is the statements I remember most like these.
The invasion of Iraq was caused by bad intelligence, G.W. Bush.

The American economy is strong McCain August 2008
I support the corporate bailout , McCain September 2008
I realise we are at war with muslim fundamentalist but why not turn over our port security to a muslim company G.W. Bush

Change! Yes we can Obama 2008, A long hard road ahead Obama 2011.

I know we are in a bad economy right now but why not pass a Health care bill to help the Insurance companies B. Obama.

Politician? We must support outsourcing to keep the cost of living down .
Politician? the poor sales in Real estate is due to the rising cost of living.
And the list goes on and oneace

 

[Mach]

Is there anyone left that actually looks at previous records, big pictures in the numbers rather than cherry picked data, and reality, rather than partisan pot shots and stupidity?

Your choice is Democrat or Republican, what is this nonpartisan that you write of?

Politics is getting votes, it has nothing to do with recrods, big picture, numbers, cherry or non-cherry picked data, and SURE AS HELL has nothing to do with reality. Votes. That's politcs.
Have you ever been involved in something really political? It sucks in idealists like a black hole and spits them out as radiation from the ass-end.

Look, the Ancient Greeks demonstrated formally that political discourse is science in and of itself and can be perfected to the degree that given nearly any arugment, both sides can be made to appear relatively appealing to 50%. Why do we not accept their historic lesson on this, if we're so turned on by data and reality? That IS the reality. Votes determine a large amount of political power, that means politcs is the game you play for that power. Politics plays a role outside of government too, it's just that you can often avoid it, or compete with it, etc. in the private markets. In governmnet, as with nearly everything else under the power of government, *you have no choice*.

All that said, as a person, I primarily use reason and my feelings to drive choice. Not partisan nonsnese. I make choices every day that have nothing to do with politics, I just which more of those life choices were not government controlled, so I could make those choices too, free of politics.

 

[Wake]

An objective person doesn't have to vote, if he knows either option helps a most unobjective partisan.

 

[Sparkles]

Is it possible for conservatives to have some good ideas, and some bad ideas?

It's possible for an individual who claims to be conservative to have non-conservative bad ideas. Bush and Amnesty for example.

Is it possible for liberals to have some good ideas and some bad ideas?

I'm still waiting for such a thing as a "leftist with good ideas". Haven't seen an example yet... but then again I do believe in miracles.

 

[presluc]

It's possible for an individual who claims to be conservative to have non-conservative bad ideas. Bush and Amnesty for example.



I'm still waiting for such a thing as a "leftist with good ideas". Haven't seen an example yet... but then again I do believe in miracles.

So tell me how did Bush change from being a conservative to an individual with bad ideas, he duck in a men's room or maybe a telephone booth? lol

So no Democrat or as you say leftist ever had a good idea.

Up until ow I have tried to be civil about political parties by not using slang to describe either of them I like to give both parties equal billing, but as you wish, rightwinger, party line walker , so can I quote you that half Americans in the major political two party system never have good Ideas and the Rightwingers can change to a non-conservative when they have bad ideas.
It would seem the two party system of America according to your own standards is on shaky ground.

 

[nota bene]

An objective person doesn't have to vote, if he knows either option helps a most unobjective partisan.

I wonder how many folks choose not to vote as a form of protest. I really don't know. I do know, though, that for many who don't vote, it's not a noble choice. It's poor citizenship. Yes, you have the freedom not to care, but I was taught that voting was a responsibility as well as a privilege.

 

[presluc]

I wonder how many folks choose not to vote as a form of protest. I really don't know. I do know, though, that for many who don't vote, it's not a noble choice. It's poor citizenship. Yes, you have the freedom not to care, but I was taught that voting was a responsibility as well as a privilege.

In my opinion voting is a responsibility which makes me wander about a certain vidieo tape where someone is saying that some potential voters does not matter.

Is it possible that 1 or perhaps both main political parties are hoping for a less turnout at the voting booths?eace

 

[Sparkles]

So tell me how did Bush change from being a conservative to an individual with bad ideas, he duck in a men's room or maybe a telephone booth? lol

So no Democrat or as you say leftist ever had a good idea.

Up until ow I have tried to be civil about political parties by not using slang to describe either of them I like to give both parties equal billing, but as you wish, rightwinger, party line walker , so can I quote you that half Americans in the major political two party system never have good Ideas and the Rightwingers can change to a non-conservative when they have bad ideas.
It would seem the two party system of America according to your own standards is on shaky ground.

Funny. Since the time I first read your posts, your posts and "civil" are not two things I would put together on any topic. But here's to you changing your ways. Cheers.

I don't care about political parties. Neither for or against, more like irrelevant. I could belong to the Bridge Player Party, and that doesn't mean anything about my ideology. Similarly, belonging to either Republican or Democrat, doesn't really mean anything ideologically. This is why I referred to "Leftist" and "Right wingers". A leftist in the Republican party, will come up with just as many bad ideas as a leftist in the Democrat party. Similarly, a right-winger in the Democrat Party, will come up with good ideas, just as much as right-winger in the Republican party. I have said before, and I'll repeat it here, if the Democrat James Trafficant had run for president I would have voted for him. But that's because he was about as far right as you could get. Even Ronald Reagan was originally a Democrat.

This is the problem you are caught in with your first two statements.

Bush isn't a conservative because he says "I am a conservative". Nor is Obama a leftist because of him saying "I am a socialist".

You are, what you are, based on your actions. Just like a cheating lying adulterous man, who says "I love you" to a girl, and then runs off and cheats on her, or divorces her, or flirts with every girl that walks by. He doesn't love her no matter what he says. His actions define who he is, not what he says, or what title he has, or how many people say "Bush is a conservative!".

Equally, some people can be leftists on some issues and rightists on another. Just like a adulterous man can change his ways, and become faithful to his wife, or a faithful husband can decide to be a scum bag and run off with another woman.

You can have an opinion on one matter, and yet have a completely opposite opinion on another matter. I was shocked to find out that Fred Thompson, normally a pillar of the far-right, supported Campaign Finance Reform. CFR is without a doubt a leftist policy. And Thompson is consistently right-wing on nearly all other issues.

That doesn't change CFR into being a right-wing policy. It just means a right-winger, supported a leftist idea.

The only other way to see this, is to believe that individual policies, change in their ideological spectrum based on who proposed the policy. That would make the ideological spectrum meaningless. After all, Stalin himself allowed free-market privately owned, Capitalist farms to operate in the Soviet Union. Even though only 10% of the farm land was privately owned, over 1/3rd of all food stocks came from privately owned and operated Capitalist farms.

Should we conclude that Privately Owned Free-market Capitalism, is a leftist socialist policy, simply because Stalin allowed it? No, instead, a leftist simply allowed a good right-wing policy.

Similarly, GWB was *generally* right-leaning. Nevertheless, he supported some bad leftist policies, as all leftist policies are bad.

Yes a leftist can come up with a right-wing policy, that is good. Clinton signed NAFTA and Welfare Reform, both of which were right-wing ideas and policies. But there is no such thing as a good leftist policy. Never seen one yet, and have little doubt that they do not exist.

 

[Sparkles]

I wonder how many folks choose not to vote as a form of protest. I really don't know. I do know, though, that for many who don't vote, it's not a noble choice. It's poor citizenship. Yes, you have the freedom not to care, but I was taught that voting was a responsibility as well as a privilege.

Well, your opinion of what I choose to, or in this case *not* to do, with my vote, is of little concern to me. As unimportant your opinion is, have you realize that your vote is one of 309 Million people in this country? You realize that even the smallest, least significant change in the public's opinion, can leave your vote as meaningless as peeing into the wind?

I'll give you just two examples. In 2000, Al Gore when excepting nomination as candidate for president, did something rather unimportant. He kissed his wife. Not a peck, but a good kiss. Obviously I have no problem with kissing, and completely support it between married couples. But I also don't change my vote based on a kiss. "OH MY GOODNESS!! HE KISSED HER!!! VOTE VOTE VOTE!"

Nevertheless, the polls spiked up 5%. The news outlets surveyed voters and the number one citation for why they were now voting for Al Gore, when they were not before.... was the kiss.

They kissed. And 5% more people voted for Gore. Think about that. Not about policy. Not about social economic change. Not about international relations, or anything else of value. No no... it was a kiss. *smooch* and 5% voter swing.

Do you know how much a 5% swing in votes is? Over 100 Million people voted in the 2000 election. That one kiss on the lips, swung 5 MILLION VOTERS. And you think your vote matters? Really? When one politically meaningless kiss can wipe out 5 million votes, and you with your one vote is going to make a difference?

And second, an old but good refresher:
Stupid Obama Voters - YouTube

They asked voters which policies are the reason they supported Obama, but they attributed all of McCain's policies to Obama.

And you think your vote matters? Really?

Well by all means vote if you wish. But I for one, am under no illusion that my vote makes any difference at all at the national level. Local? Yes. State even? Sure. National? Not a chance. But if you want to look down on me because I don't bother to vote, you can trust that I care as little about your opinion of me, as your vote matters in the national election. Zilch.

Don't shoot. Just a messenger.

 

[presluc]

Funny. Since the time I first read your posts, your posts and "civil" are not two things I would put together on any topic. But here's to you changing your ways. Cheers.

I don't care about political parties. Neither for or against, more like irrelevant. I could belong to the Bridge Player Party, and that doesn't mean anything about my ideology. Similarly, belonging to either Republican or Democrat, doesn't really mean anything ideologically. This is why I referred to "Leftist" and "Right wingers". A leftist in the Republican party, will come up with just as many bad ideas as a leftist in the Democrat party. Similarly, a right-winger in the Democrat Party, will come up with good ideas, just as much as right-winger in the Republican party. I have said before, and I'll repeat it here, if the Democrat James Trafficant had run for president I would have voted for him. But that's because he was about as far right as you could get. Even Ronald Reagan was originally a Democrat.

This is the problem you are caught in with your first two statements.

Bush isn't a conservative because he says "I am a conservative". Nor is Obama a leftist because of him saying "I am a socialist".

You are, what you are, based on your actions. Just like a cheating lying adulterous man, who says "I love you" to a girl, and then runs off and cheats on her, or divorces her, or flirts with every girl that walks by. He doesn't love her no matter what he says. His actions define who he is, not what he says, or what title he has, or how many people say "Bush is a conservative!".

Equally, some people can be leftists on some issues and rightists on another. Just like a adulterous man can change his ways, and become faithful to his wife, or a faithful husband can decide to be a scum bag and run off with another woman.

You can have an opinion on one matter, and yet have a completely opposite opinion on another matter. I was shocked to find out that Fred Thompson, normally a pillar of the far-right, supported Campaign Finance Reform. CFR is without a doubt a leftist policy. And Thompson is consistently right-wing on nearly all other issues.

That doesn't change CFR into being a right-wing policy. It just means a right-winger, supported a leftist idea.

The only other way to see this, is to believe that individual policies, change in their ideological spectrum based on who proposed the policy. That would make the ideological spectrum meaningless. After all, Stalin himself allowed free-market privately owned, Capitalist farms to operate in the Soviet Union. Even though only 10% of the farm land was privately owned, over 1/3rd of all food stocks came from privately owned and operated Capitalist farms.

Should we conclude that Privately Owned Free-market Capitalism, is a leftist socialist policy, simply because Stalin allowed it? No, instead, a leftist simply allowed a good right-wing policy.

Similarly, GWB was *generally* right-leaning. Nevertheless, he supported some bad leftist policies, as all leftist policies are bad.

Yes a leftist can come up with a right-wing policy, that is good. Clinton signed NAFTA and Welfare Reform, both of which were right-wing ideas and policies. But there is no such thing as a good leftist policy. Never seen one yet, and have little doubt that they do not exist.

So basicly what you are saying is any person can have an idea , and if it's a good idea it's a right wing idea and if it's a bad idea it automaticly becomes a leftist idea.
Aka Clinton a leftist had an idea ,it was a good idea "presto" it became a right wing idea even though a leftist thought of it
Aka Bush a rightwinger had an idea it was a bad idea and "presto" it became a leftist idea even though a rightwinger though of it???

Anology; The right takes credit for every good idea and blames every bad idea on the Left.
In short the Right never takes responsibilty for bad ideas cause according to your policy they never have any bad ideas???
This is beyond partisanship this is... WELL??eace

 

[Sparkles]

So basicly what you are saying is any person can have an idea , and if it's a good idea it's a right wing idea and if it's a bad idea it automaticly becomes a leftist idea.
Aka Clinton a leftist had an idea ,it was a good idea "presto" it became a right wing idea even though a leftist thought of it
Aka Bush a rightwinger had an idea it was a bad idea and "presto" it became a leftist idea even though a rightwinger though of it???

Anology; The right takes credit for every good idea and blames every bad idea on the Left.
In short the Right never takes responsibilty for bad ideas cause according to your policy they never have any bad ideas???
This is beyond partisanship this is... WELL??eace

Nah, doesn't matter who takes credit for what. Leftist ideas are inherently bad, and never work. Right-wing ideas have worked every single time they have been tried, in any country, throughout history. That's simply how it is, regardless of who takes credit for what.

Further the idea itself never changes what ideology it is. Again, free-market capitalism is inherently a right-wing idea. And free-market capitalism always works. Always.

Again, you are what you do, not what you claim. I can claim credit for socialism. But that wouldn't make it a right-wing idea. You can't change the ideological bent of an idea. Granted politicians try, but it just isn't true.

 

[presluc]

Nah, doesn't matter who takes credit for what. Leftist ideas are inherently bad, and never work. Right-wing ideas have worked every single time they have been tried, in any country, throughout history. That's simply how it is, regardless of who takes credit for what.

Further the idea itself never changes what ideology it is. Again, free-market capitalism is inherently a right-wing idea. And free-market capitalism always works. Always.

Again, you are what you do, not what you claim. I can claim credit for socialism. But that wouldn't make it a right-wing idea. You can't change the ideological bent of an idea. Granted politicians try, but it just isn't true.[/QUOTE}

Excuse me you said and I'm quoteing you here "Right-wing ideas have worked every single time they have been tried in any country, throughout history."

Sorry to say, History as I know it paints a differant picture .
That is unless you are to claim that when the right wing has a bad idea it somehow magically becomes a leftist idea?
Perhaps when the Leftist have a really good idea it magically becomes a Rght Wing idea.
However as we know with "magic" comes either "Illusion" or "Fantasy".
Question; Which is the Right Wing idea "ILLUSION" or "FANASY"?eace

 

[jwzg]

Take President G.W. Bush The Afganistan War, the invasion of Iraq based on NO INTELLIGENCE...

FIFY

10 Char

 

[Sparkles]

Excuse me you said and I'm quoteing you here "Right-wing ideas have worked every single time they have been tried in any country, throughout history."

Sorry to say, History as I know it paints a differant picture .
That is unless you are to claim that when the right wing has a bad idea it somehow magically becomes a leftist idea?
Perhaps when the Leftist have a really good idea it magically becomes a Rght Wing idea.
However as we know with "magic" comes either "Illusion" or "Fantasy".
Question; Which is the Right Wing idea "ILLUSION" or "FANASY"?eace

Well you are wrong. That's ok, leftist nearly always are, and you are no exception.

Nope. The idea is what it is. It can't magically change what it is.

In fact, your post kind of proves my whole point.

 

[presluc]

Well you are wrong. That's ok, leftist nearly always are, and you are no exception.

Nope. The idea is what it is. It can't magically change what it is.

In fact, your post kind of proves my whole point.

Not a leftist independent voter, so if I decided to vote for Romney I would be wrong?
Well what way can I make that wrong right?


You have said the Left-wing is always wrong , the Right wing is always right.
So where does the Independent stand, or the moderate?
It's not like there isn't any out here or is it that the Right-Wing doesn't need or want their vote ?eace

 

[presluc]

FIFY

10 Char

Sorry didn't catch that , could you be more specific?eace

 

[Sparkles]

Not a leftist independent voter, so if I decided to vote for Romney I would be wrong?
Well what way can I make that wrong right?

I don't support Romney, so I don't care who you vote for.

Further, voting for Romney, is not voting for an ideology, it's voting for a person. If Romney supports government run health care, that's a horrible leftist ideological policy. That's horrible bad policy no matter who supports it. If Romney supports free-market Capitalist health care the works every time it's tried, that good right-wing policy.

You have said the Left-wing is always wrong , the Right wing is always right.
So where does the Independent stand, or the moderate?
It's not like there isn't any out here or is it that the Right-Wing doesn't need or want their vote ?eace

Depends on what the moderate or independent supports.
If the moderate independent supports government run health care, that's a horrible leftist ideological policy. If moderate independent supports free-market Capitalist health care the works every time it's tried, that good right-wing policy.

The policy is what it is. Who does, or does not support it, doesn't matter.

 

[Wake]

I'm as balanced as possible when it comes to the political spectrum, because as an empirical nihilist I understand that most beliefs and concepts out there are... subjective. The beliefs of both the Right and the Left are subjective beliefs. If you put away all subjective beliefs and consider only reason and empirical evidence, you are more objective.

 

[ecofarm]

as an empirical nihilist

Why would a nihilist care about empirical evidence?

 

[Wake]

Why would a nihilist care about empirical evidence?

Why wouldn't one? A nihilist is someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief.

 

[presluc]

I'm as balanced as possible when it comes to the political spectrum, because as an empirical nihilist I understand that most beliefs and concepts out there are... subjective. The beliefs of both the Right and the Left are subjective beliefs. If you put away all subjective beliefs and consider only reason and empirical evidence, you are more objective.

In other words forget the Right or Left subjectives and use common sense.
This works for me.
However put this concept in a political arena the Right would say we are the most objective all our ideas are objective, the Left would say no we are the most objective, all our ideas are objective. lol,loleace

 

[Mach]

Partisanship is largely irrelevant to serious concerns. You can test this yourself.
Can someone be a partisan for a party that promotes non-partisanship? Yes.

It gets you nowhere. Revise your concerns to something that is more...sensible is my humble advice.

 

[Wake]

In other words forget the Right or Left subjectives and use common sense.
This works for me.
However put this concept in a political arena the Right would say we are the most objective all our ideas are objective, the Left would say no we are the most objective, all our ideas are objective. lol,loleace

Common sense itself is a man-made hypothetical structure that we homo sapiens have created as the "catch-all" reason for our actions and behaviors.

Both the Right and the Left are ideologues, ignoring the truth to further their beloved ideas.

 

[ecofarm]

Why wouldn't one? A nihilist is someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief.

:

Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1]

Nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wake]

:



Nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definition for nihilist:

Web definitions:

someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief.

Google

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

More info »Source - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

Furthermore, Eco, Nihilism itself demands that life itself has no objective meaning. That means that there's no meaning to life. However, that bears absolutely no relevance on a nihilist using objectivity and empirical evidence to come to his or her own conclusions. Indeed, life has no meaning, and I consider only the objective facts as I live.