OP
OP
DngrRuss
Orange Belt
Okay Sgt, so far you and I have had a friendly sparring match. We have both agreed to disagree on a few issues and have even seen eye to eye on a few points of ideology and basic freedoms. Here, however, you are making a few assumptions that chapped my hide a little.sgtmac_46 said:
"The only complaint you have about the left at ALL is that....they aren't extreme ENOUGH."- This is not the ONLY complaint I have, it is the only one I listed. You have tried very hard to tear apart my positions based on semantics Remember, a semantic argument has very little wieght when compared to one of substance. You are making quite an assumtion here regarding what goes on in my head, and where I stand on the issues. The primary reason that I am an independant is that, issue by issue, I vary from leftist to very right. Picking a party that wants to remain pigeonholed to one ideology does not serve me or my stance. If you read some of the above posts, a few readers are actually getting the gist of this thread. I didn't take a political stance one way or the other in introducing this thread- I asked for the opinions of the members of this forum. Some members decided not to participate in this discussion, and instead attack me for the very idea behind it.... hmmm.... wonder why?
"As a left leaning "independant" i'm sure you want to see the left become more aggressive, but lets not pretend it's in the name of "balance"."-
Funny, in a previous post on another thread (too lazy to search for it right now), you acknowledged and appreciated the fact that I attack the right more often on this site- and admitedly in general- because they are the ones who put up the best fight. I stated that the Dems tend to lay down and take it rather than stand up and duke it out. So, it must be okay for the Dems to woos-out in order to keep things in "balance", right? If I were to play by your rules and pull a tiny part of your post and extrapolate its contents to read your mind, I would state that you beleive that things are perfectly balanced now and that if the left got more agressive than the world would spin directly into hell and some of you poor righties might get sucked into the abyss by no fault of your own. But, since I don't choose to play by your rules, I will only address those points where you make innacurate assumptions in an attempt to state exactly what I am thinking and where exactly I stand.
"If the left were crushing the right, we wouldn't hear you talking about "balance" at all. So lets drop this chirade. "- Again- for the sake of our continued friendly internet detant', don't tell me what I think. My wife does a good enough job of that already. For the record- you are wrong on this part. Since you don't know me or haven't heard my political or social rants for the last 30 years, you don't know what I have said or done when the left was more influencial than the right, so sit down, have a cocktail, and back off. I have tried to be respectful where it is appropriate, I admit that I love sarcasm for it's humorous effects and it's ability to kick a discussion into high-gear, and I have been critical and snide toward those who have either been rude or- as posted above- cowardly toward me. What I have never done, is told someone what they do or do not think. I would not be so arrogant as to assume what someone would think, even when they might make a statement like, "my party's right all the time," or "I am a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Bhudist/etc., etc., etc.". Such statements might give me an outline of that person's stance and personality, but does not tell me what they think. For all I know, they may be in the closet on some issue not on the table for discussion (did someone say Pro-Choice Republican or Pro-Death Penalty Democrat?). And, even if the topic is on the table, and that person espouses his party line rhetoric- that still does not give me the ability to read minds or, IMHO, the right to tell him what he thinks. Again, if I were to play by your rules, I would tell you that since you are telling me what I think, and that it is wrong and disingenuous, then you must logically take the next step and tell me what I should be thinking and that you are automatically correct since you are in opposition to me. I would do that if I played by your rules, but I won't.
"The very fact that we are discussing a left/right duality shows the lack of independent thought present in this discussion. "- Huh? You lost me with that one. There is no duality to either the left or the right. Those are merely ideas. Ideas tend to be singular. There is duality in most people. That is what I wanted to see with this thread; how much duality there is in most people. I beleive that most of us, even those who subscribe to one party or another, really don't fall exclusively to the left or the right. If someone, either right or left, has absolutely no duality, then they are only one thing: shallow.
"A true independent talks about issues, not party alliances."- Two points here: 1- How the hell would you know, you are not an Independant. 2- As an Independant, I'll talk about whatever the hell I want. I don't need to be told what to talk about. As an outsider, I think I am more qualified to talk about party aliances than confirmed party wonks. (note- I said "I think" in that last statement. That implies that it is an opinion and not necessarily a fact. Though, if you take that quote and tell me what I was thinking- I will probably have to agree with you- unless you take a wild logical leap and say something like, "well, you're saying that you are a communist homosexual that prefers the company of lamas to lemurs and therefore must enjoy your Betty Crocker Brownies rectally- just like all you leftists!" Then, I'm afraid, I will have to take issue with you again
)"While agree about the cowardice of anonymous point-posters, I have to say that you might want to examine your position a little more closely." I did. Four times now. Still nothing wrong with it. There is NO POSITION taken with the post. I said, and I am paraphrasing here, that I believe that Republicans are basically good people, but that their leadership are greedy jerks, and that I beleive that Dems are basically good people, but that their leaders are whiny cowards afraid to stand up for what they beleive in. It amazes me that you could turn that into an indictment of the right. What it really states is a proposal for a discussion. You want to take it another way. Feel free, you'll just be wrong.
"The only way in which you claim the left is wrong, is that they aren't being aggressive enough in pursuing their agenda. You call that balanced? It's ok to be biased, but don't pretend to be unbiased in the process."- Again, it is the only claim I POSTED ON THIS THREAD, not my only issue with the left. And, for the record, I never said I was balanced. I lean left. Lean, mind you. I am not dancing on the left side of Lefty Street, in Lefttown, Leftsylvania. I merely lean left. But, even though I am leaning, I am not falling over- I think that is pretty balanced. I did not propose a lack of bias or balance in this post. I wanted HONEST SELF EXAMINATION, so far, all you have done is examine me. Well, take a good look, cuz I'm wearing edible underwear (a favorite of Dems) with Bush's picture (a favorite of Reps)on it- so I am balanced.
"Ok, but you go first. The only thing you said about the democrats is, that they aren't leftist enough."- I tell you what. I'll give you an example of why I am an independant. I'll pick an issue, then give you the general Rep position, then the standard Dem position. Then I will give you my position and why I think they are both- as a party- wrong. The issue- the 2nd Amendment:
Standard Rep Rhetoric- The 2nd Amendment is sacred and we should all be allowed to carry and own whatever we want cuz we're Americans Damnit. Guns and Jesus built this country and I ain't gonna let either one go away!
Standard Dem litany- Guns are the cause of violence in this country. The 2nd Amendment is confusing and just plain wrong and should go away. We don't need guns for a free society, we need talk about our feelings, bake cookies and hug more. Guns have no place in the middle of a hug.
My stance- I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I own many weapons that are blunt, many that are pointy, and a few that go bang. I should have the right to protect myself, and my family from all threats. I should also have the right to take pleasure in those weapons as a hobby, sport, or to earn a living (gee, maybe I'll open a martial arts school or something) without the Govt interfering with me.
Why what the Reps support is wrong- Totally unrestricted access to firearms (and let's face it- that's what most who argue the 2nd Amendment are really bickering over- I don't remember the last time the Govt debated the meritts of a halbred) may be a nice idea on paper, but it doesn't work when you put the human equation into it. I have met and known many who think that unrestricted access to guns is the only way to promote the 2nd Amendment. I have known many who own dozens upon dozens of guns. All they talk about is shooting. They know more about bullet calibers than what their kids learned in (that Godless Communist Public-) school that day. I look at it this way (Okay Mods- give me a little latitude here), if all I did, all day long, was touch myself; all I talked about was touching myself, I knew the many and varied ways of touching myself, and joined groups that endorsed, advocated, and promoted the unrestricted access for me to touch myself, most rational people would think I was completely crazy. Most rational people would not trust me, nor would they engage me in conversation or friendship. I could stand on my soapbox and yell, "it's my right to touch myself and anyone who thinks that I shouldn't do it anytime, anywhere is UnAmerican!" Most responsible, rational people would want to have me in custody asap, and might even say, rationally, "ya know, if anyone is the absolute case study for restricting the access to touching oneself, it's that guy. There ought to be some sort of limits that our leaders can support that keeps the right to touching oneself alive, but protects the general public from the wackjobs." (yea, I know, pun intended). Now, if the Reps were to jump up and scream, "No! His right to touch himself is sacred and guaranteed by the Constitution. Cuz he's an American Damnit. Guns, Jesus, and Touching Yourself built this country, and we ain't gonna give any of them up!" Wouldn't we think they had lost touch (pun) with reality? Wouldn't they deserve a little scrutiny? And- now here comes the reason for the thread- shouldn't many of those within the party step beyond the party line and say- "hey, wait a minute... that's obsessive and crazy... I don't support that, even though, as a rule, my party does."
Why the Dems are wrong- The assumption that everyone would be better off without guns is, as above, nice on paper. But, again, let's add the human equation to it. MOST PEOPLE SUCK. There, I said it, and I feel better for it. I want to be able to blow the crap out of someone who sucks and is effecting me in the process, i.e.- the criminal element. Dems like to think that if everyone thought like them (and this is not exclusive to the Dems) that everything would be okay and we could all live happily ever after. Well, la-dee-friggin-da! I don't know what fun-juice you been drinking but MOST PEOPLE SUCK, and are willing to show you just how much they suck. While the bad guys are raiding your house, robbing you blind, and doing horrible things to various orafices, enjoy the fact that you did all you could to rid the country of those evil wicked guns. If you are having a screwdriver driven into your belly, look at Johnny-Criminal and proudly say, "at least you don't have a gun," then give him a hug. The idea that inanimate objects (other than cash) cause good or bad behavior is ASSININE. Too many drugs in the 60's have caused Boomer and Post-Boomer Dems to remain in a permanant state of dellusion. You think that guns kill people- they don't. A-Holes are the cause of intentional death in this country. They either kill because they are an a-hole, or they are killed because they are an a-hole. You want to get rid of guns- fight harder for education, better jobs, more opportunities, a better environment, and then you will see crime rates and the public's desire to arm themselves diminish. However, even if crime were to drop 90%, I still want the right to remove that one a-hole that's left; especially if it's that crazy Republican guy who's running around touching himself.
Okay- that last line was the biased part.
Do we get it now? This post is not to examine me, or anyone else that is open enough to be honest about ideas and practices placed in his lap because of party lines that he does not agree with. To me, that is a lot more brave than slamming others.
