[iLikebeer]

So I think I'm libertarian now, which doesn't really matter as this topic is concerned, but where is the republican party going? I think the democratic party is pretty much irrelevant at this point, so I'm wondering where we're going to go with the republican party.

I'm not really interested in the "fuzzy" point of view on this, but what is our ultimate objective here....besides going against the liberals? Is there an objective besides being against what the democrats represent? Once abortion is put to a much lower level or abolished (assuming it happens) , what next? In my opinion, if we have to compromise on abortion or even give it up to trade for basic constitutional freedoms, then would you guys trade first 2 weeks abortion or anything for not being so against constitutional rights?

Can we at some point come back together and actually do what's best for the country instead of just fighting for the party's sake? This forum has gotten out of control with what BOTH SIDES will say to defend their party. Is there any way for any kind of compromise and friendship again? Like I said, i'm not on either side, but as far as debating goes, this forum is all but worthless with all the partisan bickering. I'll call out liberals on their stupid arguments if I have to (I think I'm more liberal than AW and team), but what do we have to do to make this place be more than a cheerleading party for either team at a time?

It's obvious neither side is convincing the other of anything here as it is, so what do we have to do? And I'll say the conservative side, as much as my opinion says you guys are crazy , is winning the arguments here. I don't care about who wins, but rational debate is gone. BOTH sides seem to have lost their minds here. Isn't there any civility left here?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

what do we have to do to make this place be more than a cheerleading party for either team at a time?

Abolish political parties.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Abolish political parties.

I already agree with that. But as things are, how do things get better from here? At some point, everyone here might like to get along. Why not now?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Can we at some point come back together and actually do what's best for the country instead of just fighting for the party's sake?

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's really possible. Political parties, by definition, have very different views of "what's best for the country". So if we're going to come together and do what's best for the country, who gets to decide what that is? Discussion starts, but no one really understands anyone else, so they make baseless assumptions about The Other Side. This quickly escalates to fighting, and the cycle begins anew.

And yet, oddly enough, this is still better than the alternative: a single party with one set of ideals enforced on the entire nation. Many if not most people have fantasized about this situation, with their own party in charge of course. But no one in a democratic system really wants that sort of thing to happen, and there are good reasons for that.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's really possible. Political parties, by definition, have very different views of "what's best for the country". So if we're going to come together and do what's best for the country, who gets to decide what that is? Discussion starts, but no one really understands anyone else, so they make baseless assumptions about The Other Side. This quickly escalates to fighting, and the cycle begins anew.

And yet, oddly enough, this is still better than the alternative: a single party with one set of ideals enforced on the entire nation. Many if not most people have fantasized about this situation, with their own party in charge of course. But no one in a democratic system really wants that sort of thing to happen, and there are good reasons for that.

But aren't we already at that point? Dems already are all but irrelevant. Most people in blue states have less children than those in red states. Unless the republicans split, they're only going to get stronger. How are things going to be in 20 years, let alone 100 years when we really are a Christian state? Something HAS to happen soon or the US is going to spiral down in a bad way. Either we use our 400 billion dollar per year defense investment or we get left behind educationally in the world.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Abolish political parties.

Not possible. No matter what the law is, people will always make alliances that will advance them in some way. Usually with people who believe the same things.

Look at McCain-Feingold. They meant to make certain ways of getting money harder, but what they did is just change the way it's done. The same amount of money gets to a candidate.

[Goldfinger]

Down the crapper.

[Kr0nos]

This is a pretty accurate indicator of where it's going.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

This is a pretty accurate indicator of where it's going.

Right guys, I already threw in the fascism angle. I'm trying to figure out here where things go without the bitterness and sarcasm. You've already seen 2 posts from the right that weren't antagonistic, so maybe don't help me out on this one, eh? Maybe my innocent and interested curiosity of the truth is a bad thing, but at least this "dialogue" is better than just whining. I feel weird asking the left not to derail my thread here, but please don't.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Not possible. No matter what the law is, people will always make alliances that will advance them in some way.

What if the system were redesigned so alliances wouldn't benefit anyone? Perhaps a new system could be devised which only benefits those representatives who best represent their constituents?

You say it's not possible, but there are some countries out there working under similar non-partisan systems already.

[olePigeon]

How about removing the restriction that (in 48 states, anyway) you can only vote in the primary if the political party you're affiliated with is represented?

For the past 100 years -- and with few exceptions -- it's always come down to Democrat or Republican.

I think the reason you're not likely to see more Libertarian, Green Party, and Democratic Republic parties is because everyone "knows" that it's a "waisted" vote. We're drilled into thinking that we should vote either Republican or Democrat; and why shouldn't we? If we vote any other way it means one less vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate who's obviously going to win anyway.

The flip side to that is that it'd take a lot less money to bribe- err, I mean convince people to vote a different party if they don't have to be affiliated with any party.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

I feel weird asking the left not to derail my thread here, but please don't.

Why do you think I was trying to "derail" your thread? There comes a time where you'll have to face reality, that liberty, progress and freedom are diametrically opposed to exploitation, fascism and nationalism.

What's there to do? Split the country, - there really is no other way. I personally (and I'm sure many others) don't really see that much common ground anymore. "Nation states" are a fairly new invention, and are slowly, but surely, becoming obsolete.

There are more than enough (serious) "problems" that need to be solved, besides some mental midgits complaining about "homosexuality", abortion and orther trivial sh1t.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Why do you think I was trying to "derail" your thread? There comes a time where you'll have to face reality, that liberty, progress and freedom are diametrically opposed to exploitation, fascism and nationalism.

What's there to do? Split the country, - there really is no other way. I personally (and I'm sure many others) don't really see that much common ground anymore. "Nation states" are a fairly new invention, and are slowly, but surely, becoming obsolete.

There are more than enough (serious) "problems" that need to be solved, besides some mental midgits complaining about "homosexuality", abortion and orther trivial sh1t.

Because I'm asking for a literal reply from the republicans. We all have read or know all the sarcastic/satiric replies, and then some. I'm not asking for clever or witty remarks from anyone on the left. Everyone there has their opinion. I am asking the people in power what they intend to do with it. If I can't even ask that question without having the party I agree with more run interference against me just so your particular clever find is shown, do you really doubt the validity of the 2K elections? I just want to see where the repubs are going with this and if they have any plans of consolidating power or making amends with the party of not.

[Kevin]

I don't think the country is moving at all. Unless there are some major earthquakes, or climate change, we wont see the country move for millions of years.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Down the crapper.

You mean, like Belgium and most other European countries? So, tell us, what's your view like, since you're already in said "crapper"? The Socialists put you in there, are they ready to give it a good flush?

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

You mean, like Belgium and most other European countries? So, tell us, what's your view like, since you're already in said "crapper"? The Socialists put you in there, are they ready to give it a good flush?

Come on Mac! You have 2 hot girls beside you. Do you really need to feed the trolls? How about where America is heading, eh? I'm trying hard to have at least one thread in here of civil discourse!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Come on Mac! You have 2 hot girls beside you. Do you really need to feed the trolls? How about where America is heading, eh? I'm trying hard to have at least one thread in here of civil discourse!

No, they're not here, they're out "shopping"... god only knows what damage that will cause.


We need to vote with out convictions, not according to party lines. Make the Libertarian platform viable and stop feeding the monster that is the political status quo. I'll admit, I jumped on to the Bush bandwagon to avoid a Gore or Kerry administration, so did many others. But, given the alternative (the splintering of the Republicans in the same way the Greens fractured the Democrats) I didn't see any other choice.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, they're not here, they're out "shopping"... god only knows what damage that will cause.


We need to vote with out convictions, not according to party lines. Make the Libertarian platform viable and stop feeding the monster that is the political status quo. I'll admit, I jumped on to the Bush bandwagon to avoid a Gore or Kerry administration, so did many others. But, given the alternative (the splintering of the Republicans in the same way the Greens fractured the Democrats) I didn't see any other choice.

hehe, nice.

But I think with a multi-million dollar advertising budget, libertarians would be less of a wasted vote than Democrats. But libs would be stealing from both parties, and we'd still need a place for the dems. I think there are plenty of people that are libertarians at this point, but to different degrees. At least, imo, progressive libs that think they're still democrats could be a huge swing and base to a new party. The huge problem, like you said, is convincing them that their vote isn't wasted.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Why do you think I was trying to "derail" your thread? There comes a time where you'll have to face reality, that liberty, progress and freedom are diametrically opposed to exploitation, fascism and nationalism.

Really? How are these things opposites of each other? What is "progress", anyway?

There are more than enough (serious) "problems" that need to be solved, besides some mental midgits complaining about "homosexuality", abortion and orther trivial sh1t.

This is part of the problem: because none of the parties really understands each other, each party spends a lot of time trivializing the other party's priorities.

[Rumor]

Power and wealth. That is what politics have become all about. Perhaps it's always been that way.

I'm interested in hearing what the red has to say in regards to thier current power status and how they plan on using it.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

I just want to see where the repubs are going with this and if they have any plans of consolidating power or making amends with the party of not.

Then why are you posting (your question) in a Mac oriented forum? LOL

Go to Washington and ask the people in power.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Rumor

Power and wealth. That is what politics have become all about. Perhaps it's always been that way.

I'm interested in hearing what the red has to say in regards to thier current power status and how they plan on using it.

Yeah, I think that's a question that should have been asked 5 years ago, once Bush got elected and got things going. Too much Bush IS doing this and that, not enough stepping back and asking nicely to the people that voted for him. There's probably 1000 different answers from each person that voted, but I'd like to see them all say it instead of having to defend themselves against accusations. It could be interesting what they all have to say and hw much they each might disagree from each other.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Then why are you posting (your question) in a Mac oriented forum? LOL

Go to Washington and ask the people in power.

Because I use macs and have been coming here since '99. If you don't care, why even post? I'm more apt to vote left, but is it that hard not to post something mean or witty in a thread? Can you just let just one, just one thread be? Out of all the threads, can you please just let one go by and see what the other side says? Call it an experiment, call it crazy. But I'd like to see what the right leaning people think of a serious subject without being antagonized or accused for once.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Millennium

What is "progress", anyway?

Well, if you want to go down that route, why have politics at all?

To me progress at least involves some kind of evolution towards becoming a more tolerant, open minded and inclusive body of people (not neccessarily talking about nation states here).

And with tolerant, I don't mean being tolerant of intolerant attitudes. Progression (in politics) needs to be based on verifiable, secular, tangible and "scientific" principles, and I don't see how such progress can be made in a fascist or authoritarian based society.

So yes (because I know this argument will come up right away), being intolerant towards authoritarian, fascist and abusive systems and policies is still being progressive (and tolerant).

Originally Posted by Millennium

This is part of the problem: because none of the parties really understands each other, each party spends a lot of time trivializing the other party's priorities.

This is actually a very good point. Let me put it this way, if I'm heading towards a wall at 200 mph in a burning car, the last thing I'm worried about is somebody having their panties in a bunch over some trivial sh1t (no matter how much they want to assure me that hitting that wall won't be so bad).

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Because I use macs and have been coming here since '99.

LOL. That's not what I was talking about. I just doubt that right leaning MacNN posters have any clue as to what people on the political right in Washington might do next, let alone have any influence on the decisions of the republican party.

But fair enough. This is your thread. I'll just stop posting.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Well, if you want to go down that route, why have politics at all?

To me progress at least involves some kind of evolution towards becoming a more tolerant, open minded and inclusive body of people (not neccessarily talking about nation states here).

And with tolerant, I don't mean being tolerant of intolerant attitudes. Progression (in politics) needs to be based on verifiable, secular, tangible and "scientific" principles, and I don't see how such progress can be made in a fascist or authoritarian based society.

So yes (because I know this argument will come up right away), being intolerant towards authoritarian, fascist and abusive systems and policies is still being progressive (and tolerant).



This is actually a very good point. Let me put it this way, if I'm heading towards a wall at 200 mph in a burning car, the last thing I'm worried about is somebody having their panties in a bunch over some trivial sh1t (no matter how much they want to assure me that hitting that wall won't be so bad).

Yeah, because being an ass towards the people in power is always the way to go. Good call. Seriously, can you just ignore this thread? I get warnings instead of speeding tickets because I respect the police officer that pulls me over. No one does that anymore. I figure it's the same on the internet. Notice no one on the right has attacked your bait yet. How bout you stop putting it out there and don't come back in this thread, eh?

Is it really such a bad idea to ask the people that voted for the party that leads our country where they want to take us? Has anyone ever bothered to ask except for the debates in 04 or sarcastic questions? I think we should always question our leaders and a good place to start is the people that voted for our leaders. If you disagree with that, then make a new thread.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't think the country is moving at all. Unless there are some major earthquakes, or climate change, we wont see the country move for millions of years.

Ethiopia and Djiboute are moving.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...405947,00.html

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

This is actually a very good point. Let me put it this way, if I'm heading towards a wall at 200 mph in a burning car, the last thing I'm worried about is somebody having their panties in a bunch over some trivial sh1t (no matter how much they want to assure me that hitting that wall won't be so bad).

But what makes these things "trivial"? Certainly you think certain matters are trivial, but for others they're priorities: anything but trivial. Similarly, there are others who believe that the things you prioritize are in fact just trivial. Who is to say which is right?

To use a recent example, it is currently fashionable among American leftists to characterize themselves as basing their goals on reason, while accusing the American Right of basing their own goals on emotion and dogma. A recent thread on MacNN made this very assertion, but it has been made in many other places over the course of the last few months (if not years). And if you look this from a perspective that believes the goals of the American Right to be universally trivial and believes the goals of the American Left to be universally nontrivial, then it makes perfect sense. From the opposite perspective, it's complete lunacy, and from just about any perspective in between the two, it's debatable to varying degrees. Several decades ago, it was fashionable among the American Right to do something very similar to this, but with the sides reversed. The tactic had all the same strengths and weaknesses back then that it does now.

When each side trivializes the other side's goals, it becomes quite easy to vilify the other side. That does not, however, make such vilification any more accurate.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Millennium

But what makes these things "trivial"? Certainly you think certain matters are trivial, but for others they're priorities: anything but trivial. Similarly, there are others who believe that the things you prioritize are in fact just trivial. Who is to say which is right?

Well, if you think that "abortion", or what consenting adults do in their private lives is more important (less trivial) than, let's say finding a cure for cancer, making sure corporations produce along the lines of a sustainable environment, universal healthcare etc., than I guess there is no arguing with you.

Like I said, a succession is far overdue.

/Sorry, I won't post anymore in this thread, since I promised the starter of the topic I wouldn't.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Well, if you think that "abortion", or what consenting adults do in their private lives is more important (less trivial) than, let's say finding a cure for cancer, making sure corporations produce along the lines of a sustainable environment, universal healthcare etc., than I guess there is no arguing with you.

Where did I say I believed these things? Truth be told, the only belief I've taken any position on one way or the other in this thread is that I believe different people have different priorities.

But I find this interesting: at least within the context of this thread, you know only that a single one of my beliefs clashes with yours. Based on that, you seem to have projected a great many other beliefs which you believe I must hold, and on that basis you refuse to argue with me. What logic did you use to draw these projections?

Is it any wonder that politics is so deadlocked? When every side thinks it has a monopoly on reason, of course it will believe that there's no arguing with the other side. That's basic logic: you can't debate someone who doesn't accept the fundamental concepts of debating. But despite each side thinking it has a monopoly on reason, each side does an impressive job of proving that it doesn't. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily unreasonable at all; it only proves that as long as a side is willing to talk, then there is at least some reasoning behind it. It's when a side refuses to talk that you need to start questioning whether there is any reasoning behind it at all.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Millennium

To use a recent example, it is currently fashionable among American leftists to characterize themselves as basing their goals on reason, while accusing the American Right of basing their own goals on emotion and dogma. A recent thread on MacNN made this very assertion, but it has been made in many other places over the course of the last few months (if not years). And if you look this from a perspective that believes the goals of the American Right to be universally trivial and believes the goals of the American Left to be universally nontrivial, then it makes perfect sense. From the opposite perspective, it's complete lunacy, and from just about any perspective in between the two, it's debatable to varying degrees. Several decades ago, it was fashionable among the American Right to do something very similar to this, but with the sides reversed. The tactic had all the same strengths and weaknesses back then that it does now.

Now that's a strange one. Sitting here from my observation point in the UK, it seems utterly bizarre that the left can make such claims. For example, let's take two opposing viewpoints on immigration:

The Right: Country's full, no more immigrants, even asylum seekers.
The Left: You can't do that! What about all those poor people fleeing their homes!

The response of the right is one of practicality, which suggests logic and lack of emotion.
The response of the left is one which completely disregards the practical aspects of the situation and uses only emotion to make decisions.

I'm baffled. How did the US left manage to cook up such a weird image of themselves?

[Spliffdaddy]

I think the right should stay the course. Our values and beliefs haven't changed in a loooong time. There's no reason to compromise. Heck, our popularity is growing - the last thing we need to do is change what we've been doing.

A majority of Americans believe that there are things which are inherently right or wrong. There do exist plenty of instances where there is no "gray area".

You can't have your cake and eat it, too - much to the dismay of the leftwing fringe element.

Newt Gingrich's ability to convey the conservative message in a logical manner that's easy to understand - and easy to agree with - makes him my top pick to lead the conservative cause. Once we get rid of the liberal moderate we call Dubya.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Newt Gingrich's ability to convey the conservative message in a logical manner that's easy to understand - and easy to agree with - makes him my top pick to lead the conservative cause.

This is absolutely true. The simplest things are the closest to the Truth. Example: The Earth is Flat. As it looks flat from any point of view, it is clear it cannot be spherical. Anyway, spheres are logically complex, therefore, untrue.

Once we get rid of the liberal moderate we call Dubya.

The fact that you have him as President... does not that sound as a compromise (i.e. "gray area")?

Why not removing him now and leave gray areas for others to debate on?