[besson3c]

Indulge me with this little experiment:

I'd like to see both passionate right-wingers and left-wingers make a *genuine* concession which illustrates a flaw(s) or something negative with their beloved party. I wonder if we will ever meet in the middle, or if we are simply hopelessly partisan and will stick to our guns at all costs at this point.

Genuine and significant concessions guys... not "John Edwards is sexy". In return for your concession, you get the implicit promise that readers won't attempt to try and put this back in your face somehow. If they do, just page me and I'll post Bob Saget pictures each time they respond to something.

[placebo1969]

I've had this idea for a while too. Okay.

The left should stop the mantra, "Bush lied."

The right should stop mentioning Lewinsky anytime that Clinton's mentioned.

[Chuckit]

Yeah, the right really blew that one.

(Even the smily face is innuendo! I am a genius!)

[BRussell]

I don't know about Republicans, but I don't think you'll have any trouble whatsoever getting Democrats to bitch about their party. Democrats bitch about Democrats only slightly less than they bitch about Republicans.

Where should I start:

Democrats are too afraid to stand up for what they believe. They are controlled by corporate interests. They can't think strategically and long-term like Republicans. They think policy means meeting the other party half way. They can't stand up and say "I was wrong, Iraq was a mistake." They nominate losers like Kerry who seems to have lost all heart he ever had about 30 years ago. They'll probably nominate Hillary Clinton who has nothing going for her except her name. When they get beaten on something like health care, they become so afraid that they can't pursue it like they should. Most of them seem to have no clue how to talk to people outside of New York and California, not to mention people who are *gasp* religious. All they can do is sit around and complain about Bush rather than make a positive liberal plan and market it.

I think a better exercise might be to describe something positive that the other party or philosophy has done. Anyone can rant senselessly about a bunch of politicians, as I have aptly demonstrated above.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

I've had this idea for a while too. Okay.

The left should stop the mantra, "Bush lied."

The right should stop mentioning Lewinsky anytime that Clinton's mentioned.

That's not how you play!

You have to make it obvious which party you are making a concession to in a way that reveals your normal affiliation

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't know about Republicans, but I don't think you'll have any trouble whatsoever getting Democrats to bitch about their party. Democrats bitch about Democrats only slightly less than they bitch about Republicans.

Where should I start:

Democrats are too afraid to stand up for what they believe. They are controlled by corporate interests. They can't think strategically and long-term like Republicans. They think policy means meeting the other party half way. They can't stand up and say "I was wrong, Iraq was a mistake." They nominate losers like Kerry who seems to have lost all heart he ever had about 30 years ago. They'll probably nominate Hillary Clinton who has nothing going for her except her name. When they get beaten on something like health care, they become so afraid that they can't pursue it like they should. Most of them seem to have no clue how to talk to people outside of New York and California, not to mention people who are *gasp* religious. All they can do is sit around and complain about Bush rather than make a positive liberal plan and market it.

I think a better exercise might be to describe something positive that the other party or philosophy has done. Anyone can rant senselessly about a bunch of politicians, as I have aptly demonstrated above.

Getting off-topic here and derailing my own thread, I think the fact that either party has to "market" their own "just add water" plan is part of what is wrong in America now. Both parties consist of individuals with disparate ideas. Why can't the plans come from these individuals across party lines?

I know, I've probably said this before, and I know that right now this is seeming incredibly idealistic.

[Chuckit]

Oh, I don't really have an affiliation. Both parties think I'm the other one. I'm a registered Republican, but I think I've said enough **** about our current leaders that it would just be spiteful to do it here too.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by besson3c

That's not how you play!

You have to make it obvious which party you are making a concession to in a way that reveals your normal affiliation

I'll play any damn way I want to.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

I'll play any damn way I want to.

potato!

[ThinkInsane]

I concede that liberals aren't the devil, just people that fervently believe in their causes, whether right or wrong.

I also concede that conservatives aren't the devil, just people that fervently believe in their causes, whether right or wrong.

I will additionally concede that the current incarnations of both major US parties makes me want to puke.

[Y3a]

The right has to hammer Bush etc about the borders and all the illegals. That greed will be the death of us.

The left has to get over the 2000 and 2004 elections.

[loki74]

Some things that I'm really not cool with on what the Republicans are doing

Yucca Mountain? Yeah thats like not far from where I live. So I guess I'm biased on that. I say we should put that money towards making renewable energy cheaper. *shrug*

[cavepainter]

From the very left here;

I think the 'flat-tax' idea should be tried.

and Gretsky was not as good as Orr.
(Sorry, I had to say that; it just bugs me.)

[besson3c]

My turn, here's something negative about the left:

Here's my theory...

There are 4 categories of partisan voters... I hate to assign such crude labels to people, but bare (bear?!) with me for a moment:

- Democrat voters who feel they are informed enough to have an opinion, but do not follow politics enough to have an opinion they could defend against a well-informed opponent. These people are either too busy to keep up, or are average to below-average intelligence. They trust their instincts, are perhaps rebellious as to not be inclined to believe what they hear, or perhaps are swayed by the Left's stance on one particular issue

- Democrat ideologues who are well informed, and can defend their positions in a debate. These people actively seek out news, and are passionate with their viewpoints. The Left among us fall into this category.

- Republican versions of these same two categories.


Right now, the Republican version of the first category dominates America. They are either swayed by the Right's affiliation with the Christian Coalition or the like, are scared of terrorists and shocked and angered by 9/11, swayed by the charisma of Bush, or just have instincts that suggest that the Right present the best path, are the most trustworthy, whatever...

The problem with the left is that they offer no alternative platform. I think they recognize the strength of this population now, and decided to base the 2004 campaign on some strange non-Bush Bush variant, if this makes sense. It seemed so weird hearing somebody like Kerry pledging to "find and kill the terrorists". This is Bush's schtick, but apparently this is what the Democrats felt like America wanted to hear. Kerry wasn't a terribly genuine candidate.

I wish the left would forget about trying to be popular and attracting voters and support, and actually offer an alternative platform for people like me who are not looking for a Bush variant. I wish they had more tenacity and boldness. Hilary might be my favorite out of the bunch for these reasons, but even then I don't know a whole lot about her yet. Even if they don't win the election, they would have still done the right thing and presented a platform based on their voice, not what they think we think their voice should be.

They have little in leadership right now to have the balls and smarts to offer an alternative platform. Dean has balls, but he is too smeary and willing to be partisan and cheap shot the Right whenever he can. I have to stop and think about who else, other than Hilary, might make a good candidate for 2008. This is their biggest problem right now, I think.

[spauldingg]

I mentioned in another thread that Dems/Libs are too wishy-washy, apologetic, and unaggressive with their ideas.

[Moderator]

I actually respect Bush and Cheney's gigantic elephant balls..i wish the left would stop aplogizing to the country for being liberal and just say "Fcuk em" like Bush and Cheney do.

Its infuriating but....gotta respect that.

[budster101]

I think Bush screwed up big time with our borders to the South and the North. I've said it before and I'm saying it again. Get the illegals OUT OF HERE. ALL OF THEM.

Wait, I'm a Libertarian if anything, what am I supposed to concede to?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by cavepainter

From the very left here;

I think the 'flat-tax' idea should be tried.

and Gretsky was not as good as Orr.
(Sorry, I had to say that; it just bugs me.)

Thems fightin' words. Orr better than #99? Surely you jest.

Gretzky (ahem, not the proper spelling) changed the game in such dramatic ways, his effect will be felt for ages to come.

Not only was he the most dominant youth hockey player ever (at 6 he was playing with 10 year olds, as a 10 year old, he scored 378 goals in one season), when he made the transition to the WHL then to the NHL, doubters thought the skinny kid wouldn't do well. He won eight straight Hart Tropheys.

When traded from Edmonton to LA, he sparked a huge run of popularity for NHL hockey that saw the creation of franchises in Anaheim, San Jose, Columbus, Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville, Ottowa. Also during that time, the Quebec franchise moved to Colorado, Winnepeg to Phoenix, Minnesota to Dallas (Minnesota got another franchise later), Hartford to Carolina. The entire league shifted south.

Not only is he the single most dominant hockey player ever, he belongs in the same breath as Michael Jordan as the most dominant team sport athlete ever.

Enough about that...

I, as a Republican, concede that the Republican party sucks on border security.

I would also like them to come to the table and be willing to concede some things when it comes to environmental issues.

[mr. natural]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I, as a Republican, concede that the Republican party sucks on border security.

Parroting Ross Perot: That sucking sound you hear is a republican when it cums to border control.

I would also like them to come to the table and be willing to concede some things when it comes to environmental issues.

Just remember, dave: Nature Doesn't Make Political Compromises With Anyone.

[rambo47]

How's this:

I'm a registered republican. But the religious right scares me more than a John Kerry/Hillary Clinton ticket.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by rambo47

How's this:

I'm a registered republican. But the religious right scares me more than a John Kerry/Hillary Clinton ticket.

Interesting.. I was waiting for a Republican concession that didn't have anything to do with border security.

[budster101]

Why would you expect one? Why don't you just ask for what you want exactly?

What is it *they* are supposed to concede?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

Why would you expect one? Why don't you just ask for what you want exactly?

What is it *they* are supposed to concede?

Anything you want, there are no rules. I was just surprised that with the zillions of overall issues that exist, there has been so much agreement over lacking border security.

[budster101]

You seem to have expected something...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

You seem to have expected something...

Well, it would be nice if the hot dog guy would come by...

[budster101]

Oh, 'the hotdog guy'... haven't seen that dude in a while. I miss the hot-dog-guy...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

I think Bush screwed up big time with our borders to the South and the North. I've said it before and I'm saying it again. Get the illegals OUT OF HERE. ALL OF THEM.

Wait, I'm a Libertarian if anything, what am I supposed to concede to?

Definitely the right or the Libertarian party. I don't think I've heard you say something which even hints at anything positive having to do with the left.

[budster101]

Ok. I'm for legalizing mariuana for MS patients all over.

Name a few things the left are right about, and I'll agree with them...

[spauldingg]

Securing the borders?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

Ok. I'm for legalizing mariuana for MS patients all over.

Name a few things the left are right about, and I'll agree with them...

Here's one a Libertarian like you should agree with:

Social issues like abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo and the whole "definition of life" thing, intelligent design, etc. are issues that the government has no business getting their paws into.

The left generally are better at staying out of this territory.

[budster101]

I already agreed with securing the borders. Especially from them dangerous people from Canada.

What else?

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Here's one a Libertarian like you should agree with:

Social issues like abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo and the whole "definition of life" thing, intelligent design, etc. are issues that the government has no business getting their paws into.

The left generally are better at staying out of this territory.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

I already agreed with securing the borders. Especially from them dangerous people from Canada.

What else?

Here's another one:

Aspects of the Patriot Act infringe upon civil liberties, as does arguably other security policies enforced by the Department of Homeland Security. Example: carrying a nail clipper on a plane is a no-no.

[besson3c]

*cue crickets chirping*

[budster101]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Here's one a Libertarian like you should agree with:

Social issues like abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo and the whole "definition of life" thing, intelligent design, etc. are issues that the government has no business getting their paws into.

The left generally are better at staying out of this territory.

I'm against the Patriot Act in most respects, if the agencies can't cooperate they don't need a piece of paper to make them... I respect privacy.

I have problems with some gay people and that has nothing to do with my politics. If a gay person wishes to have a civil ceremony, I'm fine with that. Marriage is a religious representation, and is not for gay people.

Abortion. Sorry, but I'm pro life. You got a problem with that? Take it up with my Mother.

Stem Cell research? Haven't thought about it. Got a problem with that too? Too bad.

Intelligent Design, Creationism, Evolution, I'm not concerned with. Teach kids math, english, speaking properly, and a host of other things before worrying about evolution versus anything.

The left are usually pushy snobbish aholes whom I can't stand, I tolerate them.
The overtly religous are no different. Keep it to yourself, but I also respect anyone offering prayers for the sick, and dying. If you don't want their prayers, it ain't gonna hurt you right?

[spauldingg]

Holy Cr@p, I agree with almost everything Budster said...

('cept the anti choice thing)

(not going there)

(and the gay marriage thing: fine for religions that approve of gay marriage.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

I'm against the Patriot Act in most respects, if the agencies can't cooperate they don't need a piece of paper to make them... I respect privacy.

I have problems with some gay people and that has nothing to do with my politics. If a gay person wishes to have a civil ceremony, I'm fine with that. Marriage is a religious representation, and is not for gay people.

Abortion. Sorry, but I'm pro life. You got a problem with that? Take it up with my Mother.

Stem Cell research? Haven't thought about it. Got a problem with that too? Too bad.

Intelligent Design, Creationism, Evolution, I'm not concerned with. Teach kids math, english, speaking properly, and a host of other things before worrying about evolution versus anything.

The left are usually pushy snobbish aholes whom I can't stand, I tolerate them.
The overtly religous are no different. Keep it to yourself, but I also respect anyone offering prayers for the sick, and dying. If you don't want their prayers, it ain't gonna hurt you right?

You're missing the point entirely. Isn't the point of being a Libertarian to promote minimal government interference with our private lives? Small government, freedoms and civil liberties for the people? This is what I've understood.

How you think about each of these issues is completely irrelevant. The question was: should the government be creating legislation to address these issues?

[budster101]

No, I addressed each issue as you placed them before me. You never stated anything else. Since you constantly change the rules, I'll play:

I am for small government except when it comes to protecting our borders and our interests.
I like a big armed force, with big guns, killing bad guys.

I don't think my feelings on each issue is irrelevent, only you.

Liberals want BIG government, telling us what is good or bad for us right? Right.

I've expressed my feelings on civil liberties, can't you read?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by budster101

No, I addressed each issue as you placed them before me. You never stated anything else. Since you constantly change the rules, I'll play:

I am for small government except when it comes to protecting our borders and our interests.
I like a big armed force, with big guns, killing bad guys.

I don't think my feelings on each issue is irrelevent, only you.

Liberals want BIG government, telling us what is good or bad for us right? Right.

I've expressed my feelings on civil liberties, can't you read?

Dude, you're all over the place. You constantly misread things, and then become rude and surly when somebody points this out. Take your time to read a post carefully before you respond. Here is what I wrote again, if you recall it was in response to your asking what sorts of issues you might side with that function as a concession to the weaknesses of the right:

Here's one a Libertarian like you should agree with:

Social issues like abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo and the whole "definition of life" thing, intelligent design, etc. are issues that the government has no business getting their paws into.

The left generally are better at staying out of this territory.

I didn't ask "what do you think about each of these issues?", nor did I say "the left has got these issues figured out and is right about them". I emphasized the hands-off approach the left is generally more consistent with taking when it comes to these issues. The first line about me being certain you'd agree with these since you are a Libertarian should have been the tip-off.

So, basically, you are against the Christian Right, and the Right on most, if not all social stances (particularly those influenced by their religion stances). These are pretty huge issues. So, you identify with the Left when it comes to these issues - i.e. you feel that these are not issues for politicians to address. Is this fair to say?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'd like to see both passionate right-wingers and left-wingers make a *genuine* concession which illustrates a flaw(s) or something negative with their beloved party. I wonder if we will ever meet in the middle, or if we are simply hopelessly partisan and will stick to our guns at all costs at this point.

My main beef with the left is their unwillingness to admit that they are liberals. A close second would be their condescending assumption that people on the right don't think for themselves. (ie. you don't think like me, so you're stupid)

My main beef with the right is that they can be weak when pursuing initiatives/legislation (or implementing policy) for fear of enraging the left. I feel that Republicans in congress act like they are still the minority party.

Why do we have to meet in the middle, and what exactly is the middle? I know what my values and beliefs are, and I'm comfortable with that. Party-wise, I always vote the candidate or party that best represents those values and beliefs. I'll hold them accountable to their decisions as it pertains to my positions, and I'll go from there.

I'm not going to shift my entire belief system just to satisfy someone else's desire that we should move to the "middle". That would be disingenuous and/or dishonest. I much prefer that everyone be honest with themselves and others, and let the system will do the balancing act.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

My main beef with the left is their unwillingness to admit that they are liberals. A close second would be their condescending assumption that people on the right don't think for themselves. (ie. you don't think like me, so you're stupid)

What do you mean by "they don't admit that they are liberals"? Is being liberal bad? Is this something they would want to hide? Don't understand what you mean here...

My main beef with the right is that they can be weak when pursuing initiatives/legislation (or implementing policy) for fear of enraging the left. I feel that Republicans in congress act like they are still the minority party.

What about all of the appointments Bush made? He wasn't terribly concerned with enraging the Left there...

I'm not going to shift my entire belief system just to satisfy someone else's desire that we should move to the "middle". That would be disingenuous and/or dishonest. I much prefer that everyone be honest with themselves and others, and let the system will do the balancing act.

I didn't say you should change your stance. "Meet in the middle" implies a sense of compromise in a relationship. In other words, the Left and the Right should work together in a bipartisan way to find common ground, and create legislation that benefits the entire country. We should stop maintaining such a stark partisan divide.

I hate the "winner takes all" approach to politics. Yes, the Republicans won the election. That is still around 50% of the voting public, and tons of people did not vote at all. Politicians still have a responsibility to represent the needs of the public as a whole, this is how a democracy is supposed to work. Winning an election does not give a party a free pass to do whatever the hell they want. Technically, they can use their political might to get their way, but how does this benefit the overall public? They are *our* public servants, they are *our* bitches. They are designed to represent the consensus of the overall public.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What do you mean by "they don't admit that they are liberals"? Is being liberal bad? Is this something they would want to hide? Don't understand what you mean here...

If I were liberal, I sure as hell wouldn't try to hide it. But that's exactly what many on the left do. John Kerry is a perfect example. Hillary CLinton is another who has been working hard to appear mainstream, when any intelligent analysis of her positions over the years clearly shows that she's liberal to the core.

What about all of the appointments Bush made? He wasn't terribly concerned with enraging the Left there...

I thought you wanted complaints about the party in general, not simply Bush complaints. The party and movement is larger than Bush, FYI.

Regardless, names and examples would be helpful to me here, but for the sake of getting something down now, I'm going to assume you mean recess appointments. Besides the fact that we can't just have empty benches and posts at key positions for indefinite periods of time, Bush basically compensated for the exact weakness of congressional Republicans that I mentioned. Republicans have more than enough votes to get around Democrat obstructionism and get these folks appointed, yet they fear enraging the left and getting the subsequent nasty press coverage.

The Left and the Right should work together in a bipartisan way to find common ground, and create legislation that benefits the entire country. We should stop maintaining such a stark partisan divide.

I hate the "winner takes all" approach to politics. Yes, the Republicans won the election. That is still around 50% of the voting public, and tons of people did not vote at all. Politicians still have a responsibility to represent the needs of the public as a whole, this is how a democracy is supposed to work. Winning an election does not give a party a free pass to do whatever the hell they want. Technically, they can use their political might to get their way, but how does this benefit the overall public?

All legislation should be designed to benefit the entire country, compromise or no compromise. It sounds like what you really want is full consensus, which is what a lot of liberals want as well... unless 50%+1 gets them their way. Then their consensus demands fly right out the door.

It sounds like what you hate is our system, or at least the system when things don't go your way. If people don't vote, that's their own damn fault. We can only elect by those who got up off of their asses and made their way to the polls. That's not to say that officials don't still serve them, because they do. But this isn't the first time I've seen you try to diminish the Republican majority with your "but tons of people did not vote" thing.

Public responsibility is inherent in the positions. If they don't serve the common good, and their constituencies are fed up with them, then they don't win reelection. That's the way it's designed to work.

[Atomic Rooster]

In most other civilized countries the Democrats in the U.S. would be considered far right.

[budster101]

Name these 'civilized countries'...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

If I were liberal, I sure as hell wouldn't try to hide it. But that's exactly what many on the left do. John Kerry is a perfect example. Hillary CLinton is another who has been working hard to appear mainstream, when any intelligent analysis of her positions over the years clearly shows that she's liberal to the core.

I have the same complaints as you do here...

I thought you wanted complaints about the party in general, not simply Bush complaints. The party and movement is larger than Bush, FYI.

I was assuming that the Right backed and supported his nomination?

Regardless, names and examples would be helpful to me here, but for the sake of getting something down now, I'm going to assume you mean recess appointments. Besides the fact that we can't just have empty benches and posts at key positions for indefinite periods of time, Bush basically compensated for the exact weakness of congressional Republicans that I mentioned. Republicans have more than enough votes to get around Democrat obstructionism and get these folks appointed, yet they fear enraging the left and getting the subsequent nasty press coverage.

Gonzales, Rice, etc.

The fact that they are not trying to enrage the left, if this is the case, is something I respect. I think you need to take a political science course or something so that you can understand how democracy is designed. What you want is something perhaps closer to Marxism where you have an oppressive state apparatus that does what they want (I might be wrong here, Marxism is rather complicated).

All legislation should be designed to benefit the entire country, compromise or no compromise. It sounds like what you really want is full consensus, which is what a lot of liberals want as well... unless 50%+1 gets them their way. Then their consensus demands fly right out the door.

Man, you feel a lot of vitriol against the Democrats don't you? Believe it or not, if you want to benefit the entire country, your hostile feelings are not the way to go about this. If you want to make this case, make it. Stop throwing out provocative, knee-jerk reactionary comments like this. Liberals are not the Devil.

It sounds like what you hate is our system, or at least the system when things don't go your way. If people don't vote, that's their own damn fault. We can only elect by those who got up off of their asses and made their way to the polls. That's not to say that officials don't still serve them, because they do. But this isn't the first time I've seen you try to diminish the Republican majority with your "but tons of people did not vote" thing.

You really zeroed in on this point, didn't you? It was intended to be incidental. You glazed over my main point.

Public responsibility is inherent in the positions. If they don't serve the common good, and their constituencies are fed up with them, then they don't win reelection. That's the way it's designed to work.

Yes, the system is designed so that the voters decide who is running the show. But, if the consensus of these same voters indicates one thing and the party in power does the other, this is not a great moment in democracy.

Now, before you go jumping the gun and think that I'm insinuating that the Right are not serving the interests of the people, I'm not insinuating this. I'm speaking in very general terms. The "winner takes all" attitude is a big problem in this country right now. Politics is not a football game with a winner or loser.

Finally, recognize that any political scientist will tell you that the majority of any population is comprised of moderates. Seeing how you have such great difficulty finding fault with the right, I'm going to assume that your ideology swings pretty far right. Recognize that it is *you* that is out of the mainstream - not somebody who has a viewpoint that smells like it has characteristics of the left.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What you want is something perhaps closer to Marxism where you have an oppressive state apparatus that does what they want (I might be wrong here, Marxism is rather complicated).

Is that really the best you can do? Oooh, maybe not... I see more below.

The "winner takes all" attitude is a big problem in this country right now. Politics is not a football game with a winner or loser.

With political elections, absolutely there are winners and losers. Winners get the jobs while the losers go home.

Finally, recognize that any political scientist will tell you that the majority of any population is comprised of moderates.

Moderate what? Who defines "moderate"? Provide a link showing these politically scientific studies showing that the majority of any and all populations meets your definition of "moderate".

Seeing how you have such great difficulty finding fault with the right, I'm going to assume that your ideology swings pretty far right. Recognize that it is *you* that is out of the mainstream - not somebody who has a viewpoint that smells like it has characteristics of the left.

So this is the best you could do. Man, you're really grasping.

You may think I'm out of the mainstream, and that's fine with me. My party continues to increase its solid majority, and I will continue to support it as long as it best represents my views and positions. Your referring to me as a Marxist and as being "out of the mainstream" does nothing to affect this.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Is that really the best you can do? Oooh, maybe not... I see more below.

This is actually a conversation, the pissing contest is that-a-way *points somewhere else*

Moderate what? Who defines "moderate"? Provide a link showing these politically scientific studies showing that the majority of any and all populations meets your definition of "moderate".

This is an extremely basic concept of political science, you Google it yourself.

So this is the best you could do. Man, you're really grasping.

You may think I'm out of the mainstream, and that's fine with me. My party continues to increase its solid majority, and I will continue to support it as long as it best represents my views and positions. Your referring to me as a Marxist and as being "out of the mainstream" does nothing to affect this.

I guess the conversation ends here.

BTW, I didn't call you Marxist.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

This is an extremely basic concept of political science, you Google it yourself.

I've taken plenty of PS courses. I can't imagine such an "extremely basic concept" escaped stacks and stacks of books. It may be a common result of polling in the US - as in people claiming they are moderate - but nowhere have I ever seen a definitive proof of concept that encompasses adn projects this as a basis of fact in any and all societies.

BTW, I didn't call you Marxist.

You're right. My bad.

Originally Posted by besson3c

What you want is something perhaps closer to Marxism where you have an oppressive state apparatus that does what they want.

I guess this is where the converstaion ends.

Just a guess? Go ahead... take a firm stand for a change. It's liberating.

[spacefreak]

On another note, is there any chance you can change the NetMusician slogan? The word "exploit", while your usage is ok, seems to have taken on the more negative of its definitions in recent years (probably due to viruses and malware that exploit systems). Maybe something like "utilize" or "harness"? Exploit just sounds sort of evil-ish.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I've taken plenty of PS courses. I can't imagine such an "extremely basic concept" escaped stacks and stacks of books. It may be a common result of polling in the US - as in people claiming they are moderate - but nowhere have I ever seen a definitive proof of concept that encompasses adn projects this as a basis of fact in any and all societies.

Does 10% of voters being ideologues, 20% swing voters, and 70% apolitical ring a bell?

10% of the population has a firm stance either way. 20% swing, and 70% are not terribly political (we can assume that they aren't firmly in either camp). If I knew what to Google for, I'd find these same stats online. These come right out of my course textbook for the course I took a few semesters ago. I also have a graph which illustrates how within a society, there are more people somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum than on the edges. This is all I'm saying, I don't know why this is so difficult to believe.

You're right. My bad.

Just a guess? Go ahead... take a firm stand for a change. It's liberating.

You've read enough of my posts to know that I refuse to have a conversation with somebody who cannot exhibit self-control. If you want to do away with the snippy comments, we can continue this conversation.

I don't know enough about Marxism to go into to, do you? It's a pretty complicated subject. I was saying that what you were *describing* sounds like Marxism, where there is an oppressive state apparatus that controls the state regardless of the will of the people. I didn't say that you *are* Marxist.