Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 233
  1.    #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    I agree as well. In fact, the statements premise is the most intelligent I’ve seen mikec make . The statement just struck me as being at odds with the stated views of conservatives. Mikec obviously has some “liberal” tendencies. Good for you mikec. Hahhaha
    I see. That would mean you've fallen prey to Karl Rove's and the Christian Coalition's efforts to redefine radical right-wing christian dogma as being a "conservative".
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Those 'other' conservatives from south of the Mason-Dixon Line, plus midwestern and rustbelt states will strongly differ with mikec, but I applaud his courage to differentiate himself, even if this particular plank is controlled by the social conservatives within his party nationally.
    To mikec
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I see. That would mean you've fallen prey to Karl Rove's and the Christian Coalition's efforts to redefine radical right-wing christian dogma as being a "conservative".

    ........yeah
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I see. That would mean you've fallen prey to Karl Rove's and the Christian Coalition's efforts to redefine radical right-wing christian dogma as being a "conservative".
    If that's the case, he's got lots of company from within Republican ranks, going back 30 years. Anita Bryant, anyone?
  5. #125  
    To clarify my point.

    Iago - yes, all those "conservatives" are wrong. The Republican tends to forget about personal freedom (and responsibility) at the expense of religious bullshyte.

    Modera correctly understood my point - focus $ where they make the most impact. I mean, look at what the Surgeon General went through when she mentioned masturbation? People (religious nuts) freaked out, even though it was (and still is a good approach).

    I guess I don't tow the "party" line. I take things issue by issue.
  6.    #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    To clarify my point.

    Iago - yes, all those "conservatives" are wrong. The Republican tends to forget about personal freedom (and responsibility) at the expense of religious bullshyte.

    Modera correctly understood my point - focus $ where they make the most impact. I mean, look at what the Surgeon General went through when she mentioned masturbation? People (religious nuts) freaked out, even though it was (and still is a good approach).

    I guess I don't tow the "party" line. I take things issue by issue.
    I think I love you man (in the Bud Lite commercial kind of way... not the Republican kind of way...not that there's anything wrong with that, to use a Seinfeld-ism).

    Seriously, I may come around to see you in a whole new light Mike. Nicely done.
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    To clarify my point.

    Iago - yes, all those "conservatives" are wrong. The Republican tends to forget about personal freedom (and responsibility) at the expense of religious bullshyte.

    Modera correctly understood my point - focus $ where they make the most impact. I mean, look at what the Surgeon General went through when she mentioned masturbation? People (religious nuts) freaked out, even though it was (and still is a good approach).

    I guess I don't tow the "party" line. I take things issue by issue.
    I see. Pragmatic. Well mikec say hello to all the other pragmatists.....take a bow moderateinny.....lifes2short... meet mikec. Next issue.....
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  8. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    gojeda- Your view of jurisprudence is like that of some Central American junta nation where the practice of repeating the same falsehoods becomes legendary and drives the agenda, fueled by guns and drugs. The best and brightest are not in need of skewing and pairing such out-of-context quotes from multiple decisions or opinions in order to make a singular point. Shouting your less-then-honest assessments buries your cause deeper still. Yet, you won't allow that to hinder your race to the bottom. You can go there alone.
    Shortie, you are the first person I've come across on the web that provides a source, in an attempt to solidify your position, but instead ends up vindicating your counterpart's views.

    1. First you say that the SCOTUS rulings were non-binding. Your own sources say otherwise.

    2. Then you say that the SCOTUS never found what was happening in Florida was in violation of the 14th amendment. Your own sources say otherwise.

    3. Lastly, you say that Bush stonewalled the recount when, in fact, it has been demonstrated that the SCOTUS had determined that Florida election law is sound and should not be violated.

    As a matter of fact, it has been demonstrated, using your sources, that you have not been particularly right on any major point regarding the 2000 elections.

    I would actually like to thank you for actually doing the legwork for me. Your sources actually worked quite nicely for me. However, I am still quite mystified as to how you can be so obstinately ignorant of what actually occured even when you had the information at your fingertips and knew where to get it?

    Bizarre to say the least.
  9. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    Shortie,

    Stop fight gojeda...he is right 9 ways to Sunday on this. You obviously don't understand the court system, or even the events and decision.

    Just acjnowledge you were mistaken, and move on. Watching you bang you head against the wall was amusing the first 5 times...after that it's just pathetic.
    Yea, I mean, it is really weird. You show the man that passage in the decision that really just flies in the face of what he saying, and he sits there and says, "Well, that's wrong."

    It felt, at times, I was talking to Ward Churchill himself. LOL!
  10.    #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    ........yeah
    Perhaps you can breath easy knowing that there might be light at the end of the tunnel for those of us tired of the reign of terror perpetrated by extreme right-winger's in the GOP?



    Could it be the GOP won't have social wedge issues to cloud the voter's view of their corporate criminal minds in 2008?

    One can only pray....
  11. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Finally....now to find out what I am. Let's see
    I predict you are just going to be contrary in a vain attempt to make a point. Lets see your responses.

    Nope. I don't support taxpayer paid abortions. I am pro-opinion, meaning that my belief system does not advocate abortion yet I don't expect the government to mandate that 300MM people subscribe to my belief system.
    OK, check - you are pro-choice. Left 1, Right 0

    Nope. I don't support same sex marriage...at a federal level. I think it should be left to the states. But I also think "marriage" is a religious institution and should be recognized solely as just that. I fully support civil unions, but still think that should be decided at a state level.
    So, in other words, you are permissive of same sex-marriage. Left 2, Right 0

    Nope. But it really depends on how it is implemented. But I am generally not an ardent supporter of all forms of affirmative action. For instance, I don't mind a percentage of a NY State Trooper candidate pool being opened to minorities first BUT I do not subscribe to lower test score thresholds to fill that quota - as such, if it cannot be filled with high enough scoring candidates I think the job(s) should go to the next highest score not matter what their race is.
    Wishy washy answer, but I will give you the benefit of a doubt and say you are against AA. Left 2, Right 1

    Nope. I am not a big union supporter and never have. I am a business owner and have owned/ran many technology companies and generally think that the spirit of unions, while well intentioned, have simply gotten off track and become an obsolete mechanism to protect workers in a global economy. Now that implies that I think workers do need to be protected so you might find that to be "liberal" since it suits whatever the hell your agenda is up here.
    The most intelligent thing you've said in this forum by far. Left 2, Right 2

    Yes. My views are well stated in other threads about this topic. I don't think its reasonable to expect we can abolish guns but I also realize that there are too many and do advocate better background checks and other proactive means to insure lawful citizens buy guns. In a perfect world I'd love to see them reduced by 90% but it just isn't reality and it cannot be done. So I'll admit to my "liberal" bias on this one.
    Dodging the question and sounding like someone who wants gun control but does not particularly want to admit it. Left 2.5, Right 2

    Nope. I've stated in other threads that I've lived in the UK and travel to a lot of countries that have socialized medicine and as such I think their systems may offer things that we can incorporate and improve our own system. I don't agree with the rhetoric that these systems do not work. And I do wonder if there isn't a happy medium whereby the government may subsidize health care plans but do not "control medicine" as you've so ominously posted above.
    Ok, so in fact you do support socialized medicine. Left 3.5, Right 2

    Nope. Pretty broad subject unto itself so it depends on what entitlements I suppose. I generally don't advocate entitlement programs like long-term welfare. I hold a special disdain for corporate entitlement programs. But I do not like systems that allow for perpetual abuse of tax payer money and eventually amount to handouts.

    Nope. Another broad one though. If you mean redistribution of taxes to large corporations in the form of tax breaks then you have me dead on. If you mean higher taxes to support large entitlement programs then you are incorrect and I do not support them.
    Big business breaks is not considered entitlement income redistribution, so you went off into left field on this. However you do say, rather ambiguously, that you are not into the whole welfare handout thing. So lets call it Left 3.5, Right 2.5

    Seems to me the pattern in my case was not all that easy to discern at all.
    Actually, it was. Based on your responses, are a moderate liberal - much in the same way Clinton was. The more I hear, of course, the more the gauge is refined.

    As for my pre-assesment, I was partly right. You were not overtly contrary, but you were wishy-washy and ambiguous to a few of the issues raised. You were being coy here, which tells me you were unwilling to articulate what it is you actually support.

    You are not as mysterious as you think you are.

    You've made a rather overreaching conclusion about me because I don't like Bush or the Iraq war
    No, that was only part of the equation. Significant portions of the conservative base do not care for where the war is heading either, so the Iraq war is not nearly a good criteria to determine political leanings.

    What does that make you? Can you say N E O C O N?
    Actually, I am a Reagan republican.

    No, because you criticized him in one breath and then quoted him when it was convienient to you just as I thought you would.
    Meanwhile, back on Earth, the larger point of why I cited the article is that there was a point in time when Greenspan (whom you glorified when he took his recent jab at the President) supported the president (who you see as the devil incarnate) until it was not convenient to do so.

    In other words, Greenspan is a yappy flip-flopper - which I think is an accurate characterization of the guy.
    Last edited by gojeda; 09/30/2007 at 10:37 PM.
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Shortie, you are the first person I've come across on the web that provides a source, in an attempt to solidify your position, but instead ends up vindicating your counterpart's views.
    Your methods of circular, self-gratifying 'banter' are tired, old, and ineffective to your supposed cause. However, you'll continue to post revisionist claims as long as you think your twisted arguments matter and can get a rise out of someone. Fortunately, for the literate of the world, who can read, study, and comprehend the opinions and decisions of the Supreme Court just fine without your bait-and-switch-facts routine, having access to much more qualified unbiased resources. Unless one of my compatriots would like to subject themselves to your lowbrow assault of the subject, on this subject, you are done.
  13.    #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I predict you are just going to be contrary in a vain attempt to make a point. Lets see your responses.
    Yes you have me all figured out.

    OK, check - you are pro-choice. Left 1, Right 0
    Ahh great, one of these guys. Black and white and no grey. I'm against abortion as part of my personal belief system and have the four kids to prove it.

    I'm going to call it - Left 0, Middle 1, Right 0

    So, in other words, you are permissive of same sex-marriage. Left 2, Right 0
    Um, no that is not what I said. Left 0, Middle 2, Right 0

    Wishy washy answer, but I will give you the benefit of a doubt and say you are against AA. Left 2, Right 1
    What is wishy washy about it? Does it require too much thinking on your part? Left 0, Middle 3, Right 0

    The most intelligent thing you've said in this forum by far. Left 2, Right 2
    Wow, you say that as though you've read all my posts. I'm ever so flattered. Seriously...could you be more condescending?

    Left 0, Middle 3, Right 1

    Dodging the question and sounding like someone who wants gun control but does not particularly want to admit it. Left 2.5, Right 2
    Well since I answered "YES" to this I fail to see how I dodged anything?

    Left 1, Middle 3, Right 1

    Ok, so in fact you do support socialized medicine. Left 3.5, Right 2
    No, you pompus &%#(& I said that the socialized systems I've seen and lived within worked just fine and as such should be explored and perhaps some portions of those systems could be incorporated into whatever health care reform takes place in this country. So I do not necessarily advocate socialized medicine for the US. Again black and white with you since it serves you're hard right purposes to define me as something that I am not.

    Left 1, Middle 4, Right 1

    Big business breaks is not considered entitlement income redistribution, so you went off into left field on this, but you do say, rather ambiguously, that you are not into the whole welfare handout thing. So lets call it Left 3.5, Right 2.5
    Gee thanks. Left 1, Middle 4, Right 2

    Actually, it was. Based on your responses, are a moderate liberal - much in the same way Clinton was. The more I hear, of course, the more the gauge is refined.
    You clearly hear only what your big head wants to hear. But if you want to compare me to Clinton I can agree that I certainly see more eye to eye with him than I do Bush. Based on my scoring system it seems you're brilliant assessment of me is all wet.

    As for my pre-assesment, I was partly right.
    Funny I thought you were dead wrong. But I'm not surprised to hear you say you were partly right as I'd bet you've never once admitted you've been partly wrong in your life.

    You were not overtly contrary, but you were wishy-washy and ambiguous to a few of the issues raised. You were being coy here, which tells me you were unwilling to articulate what it is you actually support.
    I have no problems articulating my stance on any of these issues. The difference is that I see things in shades of grey and you see things in black and white. It is what makes you a neoconservative and what makes me a left-leaning moderate. Although...it would appear my scoring system has me pegged as a right-leaning moderate.

    You are not as mysterious as you think you are.
    Whatever the hell that means. I think most would tell you that I am not afraid to speak my mind.

    Actually, I am a Reagan republican.
    Sorry about that. I'm a *former Goldwater Republican.

    (BTW - I had to edit this again since you're quotes we're all frigged up and I responded before you fixed them. I think they're straight now.)

    * added to help my binary friend.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/01/2007 at 12:05 AM.
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Yes you have me all figured out.
    I never claimed that, but it is rather ridiculous to think certain patterns can't be gleamed from that a person says, no?

    Ahh great, one of these guys. Black and white and no grey. I'm against abortion as part of my personal belief system and have the four kids to prove it.
    I don't think anyone is "for abortion". The choices are you are either pro-choice of pro-life. You have all but admitted that you are pro-choice and that is a matter to be decided for the state.

    Why you ducking from what you've said previously....again?

    No, you pompus &%#(.
    Tsk tsk mod, your bitterness is coming out again.

    I said that the socialized systems I've seen and lived within worked just fine and as such should be explored and perhaps some portions of those systems could be incorporated into whatever health care reform takes place in this country. So I do not necessarily advocate socialized medicine for the US. Again black and white with you since it serves you're hard right purposes to define me as something that I am not.
    Again, you are being wishy washy. You might not be gung-ho on socialized medicine, but you want to integrate certain facets of socialized medicine.

    Compare and contrast this with those who does not want government involvement, or minimal involvement, in medicine.

    Your views are more closely aligned to the left than to the right here.

    You clearly hear only what your big head wants to hear. But if you want to compare me to Clinton I can agree that I certainly see more eye to eye with him than I do Bush.
    Well, you pretty much `*admitted* you were a former republican, so I am not sure what your greek tragedy is here.

    Funny I thought you were dead wrong.

    Of course you did. You are being contrary yet again.

    I have no problems articulating my stance on any of these issues. The difference is that I see things in shades of grey and you see things in black and white.
    Translaton: wishy-washy

    It is what makes you a neoconservative and what makes me a left-leaning moderate.
    I believe the correct term here is Reagan republican.

    Whatever the hell that means. I think most would tell you that I am not afraid to speak my mind.
    Well, you aren't afraid of showing your embitterness, that is for sure.

    Sorry about that. I'm a Goldwater Republican.
    You are contradicting yourself here.

    First you had said previously in the thread that you are a former member of the republican party, a Goldwater Republican. Now you are back to being a Goldwater Republican?

    I mean, let us not forget that Goldwater was quite conservative, especially in regards to his major party rival Nelson Rockefeller in 1964.

    So, it seems, you have gone right to left, now back to the right - in the space of, say, 20 posts? You seem quite confused to say the least.

    By the way, I should say that because I am a Reagan republican does not necessarily mean that liberals are "bad". Clearly, there have been good liberals that have graced the political scene over the years. I have always held men like LBJ and Truman in high regard.
  15.    #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    You are contradicting yourself here.

    First you had said previously in the thread that you are a former member of the republican party, a Goldwater Republican. Now you are back to being a Goldwater Republican?
    It's been so long now that I usually tend to think in past tense about Barry. But yes, in this case omitted the word "former".

    I mean, let us not forget that Goldwater was quite conservative, especially in regards to his major party rival Nelson Rockefeller in 1964.
    He'd be a moderate today for sure.

    So, it seems, you have gone right to left, now back to the right - in the space of, say, 20 posts? You seem quite confused to say the least.
    Because I omitted the word "former". Gee, you're really really good at this spinning thing. Is this Dan Bartlett?

    By the way, I should say that because I am a Reagan republican does not necessarily mean that liberals are "bad".
    Is that so? Well I'm certain that all of us "liberals" are relieved to hear that.

    Wow...just when I thought neocons like you would be cowering in the woods in fear that the torch burning mobs are finally coming to get you, along comes you. I mean look at you up here getting all uppity and spinning, lying, contorting, distorting, and re-defining others like a good little neocon. Good for you. You go neo!

    I have a flight in the morning to Detroit. It's a shame I won't be here to read more fascinating spin.
  16.    #136  
    I should add that its guys like you that have truly ruined any chance of honest discourse in this country. You're so narrow minded that you need to have everything broken down into one bucket or another, and nothing in between. Unfortunately life is more nuanced and requires compromise rather than political sound bytes designed to maintain a deep divide between left and right.

    For instance the issue of abortion: I am personally against it. I don't advocate government funded abortions. I think that late term abortions, other than when endangering the life of a woman, should be banned. But I also realize my beliefs are derived from my religious upbringing and that abortion in general is a deeply religious based issue. So I try to find the best of two sides in hopes that consensus can be reached and the nation can move forward. It is a position of compromise, yet reduced to a position that is "wishy washy" by neocons like you. It is the very reason that Bush was able to get elected ... twice. And I hope that it is the very reason that guys like you will be drubbed out of office in 2008. The country has room for those of us in the middle. The country needs guys like us that are in the middle or we'll be heading toward another civil war if such extremism is left unchecked. Fortunately as the Pew Research graph I've posted above shows, guys like you are losing credibility and with any hope we'll elect someone that is capable - probably not perfect - but capable of truly being a uniter and not a divider. I know that prospect must irritate a neocon like you to no end though, doesn't it?
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/01/2007 at 12:52 AM.
  17. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Wow...just when I thought neocons like you would be cowering in the woods in fear that the torch burning mobs are finally coming to get you, along comes you. I mean look at you up here getting all uppity and spinning, lying, contorting, distorting,
    That would make me.....liberal.

    and re-defining others like a good little neocon. Good for you. You go neo!
    I
    This passage, of course, demonstrates and betrays your liberal proclivities. You are apt to call names, make disparaging remarks, offer ad hominem attacks, but offer little in the way of substantive discourse.

    In the end, the liberal came out of the closet like the good little liberal he is.
  18.    #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    ...but offer little in the way of substantive discourse.
    I think it is pretty clear who values honest discourse. You're interested in defining people, not understanding them. You need things to be binary - either on or off. There is no middle with you so you attempt to define others to be something you can understand - which in and of itself is quite narrow.

    In the end, the liberal came out of the closet like the good little liberal he is.
    Seriously, compared to you even Barry Goldwater would be considered liberal. So I'll happily take that as a compliment coming from someone of your ilk.
  19. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I should add that its guys like you that have truly ruined any chance of honest discourse in this country.
    I seem to recall your "compadre" Shortie calling someone stupid. I also seem to recall you calling me "a pompous ***".

    Not that I particularly care what names are being used here, but tell me, is THAT your idea of an honest discourse?

    You're so narrow minded that you need to have everything break down into one bucket or another, and nothing in between.
    I choose to think of it as being honest with oneself and being honest with perceptions.

    As a liberal, you seem to have a great deal of difficulty being called a liberal. You (and many others like you) seem to run away from the description.

    Unfortunately life is more nuanced and requires compromise rather than political sound bytes designed to maintain a deep divide between left and right.
    Life is nuanced in some ways, and not particularly nuanced in other ways. To sit there and say that "life is nuanced" reeks of the same pigeon-holing you seem to be so vehemently against.

    It is a position of compromise, yet reduced to a position that is "wishy washy" by neocons like you.
    To say that abortion is a position of compromise is beyond absurd. Abortion is one of those "hot button topics" that people seem to fall squarely on one side or another on. To say that there is some sort of gray area here is disingenous and, yes, wishy-washy.

    The issue is not so much who funds what, but whether you think it is permissable or not. People are not particularly pre-occupied with "who picks up the tab".

    We aren't talking about how deep tax-cuts should go here. We are talking about whether or not it is OK to take the life of the unborn. Your "compromise" angle here is un-adulterated bull****.

    It is the very reason that Bush was able to get elected ... twice. And I hope that it is the very reason that guys like you will be drubbed out of office in 2008.
    Guys "like me". Whatever that means.

    Bush got elected twice becasue the alternative positively blew. Gore was a snake in the grass and Kerry was a liar and a hypocrite who holds nothing as sacred.

    The country has room for those of us in the middle. The country needs guys like us that are in the middle or we'll be heading toward another civil war if such extremism ileft unchecked.
    Alarmism and FUD is a poor defense.

    The last thing the country needs is a wishy-washy panderer. The country needs a decisive leader - whether it be liberal or convservative.

    Fortunately as the Pew Research graph I've posted above shows, guys like you are losing credibility
    Have you seen where Pelosi and Co. have been polling?

    and with any hope we'll elect someone that is capable - probably not perfect - but capable of truly being a uniter and not a divider.
    Flowery romanticism that doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot.

    I know that prospect must irritate a neocon like you to no end though, doesn't it?
    Why would I be afraid of a uniter? I wish the country had a strong personality to do what needs to be done. The last time we had that was with Reagan. I fear that type of politician is now extinct, hence my sentiment that the country is in dire need to real leadership.
  20. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I think it is pretty clear who values honest discourse.
    I'd say so.

    You're interested in defining people, not understanding them. You need things to be binary - either on or off. There is no middle with you so you attempt to define others to be something you can understand - which in and of itself is quite narrow.
    As opposed to you, who gives incessantly ambiguous answers when incesive and direct questions are asked? You, who runs away from taking a stand on the issues, are sitting there criticising me?

    Rich....very rich.

    You remind me of John Kerry, except in that you are less convincing.

    Seriously, compared to you even Barry Goldwater would be considered liberal. So I'll happily take that as a compliment coming from someone of your ilk.
    I fail to see how a Reagan republican would see Goldwater as liberal, but I suppose in your own little world, the notion would work.

Posting Permissions