****In terms of gov't as a whole, do you believe that you should have the right to live your life the way you want with the most amount of freedom and personal choices or do you think the government can do a better job of living your life for you and making those personal choices for you.**** Which party leaves me free to live and choose on my own? I'll gladly vote for them. ___________________________ Guess this needs to be reposted: I thought (and still think) that liberals were out to create a welfare state, where the productive men of ability are sacrificed to the lazy & incompetant. Where need is rewarded & ability is penalized. I also thought that the Republican side was clearly the lesser of the two evils, and would be more inclined to preserve the capitalistic elements of our society. So now that the Republicans have a triple-hold on government, controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency....what have they done for us? First off, Government spending has become much worse. The government is increasing it's spending allowences far faster than the economy is expanding. The so called 'tax-cuts' are a joke when spending is expanding uncontrollably, the tax cuts are really just tax-defferments. We'll have to pay for all this eventually...with interest. Goverment is getting bigger, not smaller. The government prescription drug plan is probably the biggest new social program since Roosevelt's 'New Deal', and we'll all suffer the results. The 'Patriot Acts' show callous disregard for individual rights, and have the founding fathers of this country turning in their graves. Instead of fixing our existing apparatuses of national security, a brand new one has been created- the Homeland Security department. Global altruism(at taxpayer expense) is breaking new highs with Bush's African aid program. Bush's motives for invading & occupying Iraq (price tag: one billion dollars per week) are becoming suspect with the non-discovery of WMD's. It just seems like we were better off with a (albiet slimy & dishonest) Democrat as president, with a Republican Congress to restrain him. Now it just seems like NOBODY is restraining our precipitous & rapid decline into STATISM.
Quoting from your previous comments: "In terms of gov't as a whole, do you believe that you should have the right to live your life the way you want with the most amount of freedom and personal choices or do you think the government can do a better job of living your life for you and making those personal choices for you. Yes, it's that simple. Outside of the extreme social issues that get brought into this pot so much for sensationalism, most of the issues can really be divided along those lines." From your perspective, there are only two options, only black and white, not any shades of gray. I could respond that I am 100% in favor of no government control whatsoever...and that would be an extreme position. I could respond that I am 100% in favor of government control...and that would be an extreme position. I might say 50/50, 60/40, 40/60, 30/70, 70/30, etc. Or I might say: It depends on the issue, and the impact that particular issue has on my life, the life of my family, the short term and long term consequences, etc. Surrendering to an all or nothing belief system as it relates to the political field, does provide a warm stupid feeling that provides comfort and eliminates the need to think, evaluate, to re-evaluate decisions made in the past, etc. The major problem with black and white thinking, as it relates to an evolving system of government and society, is that it leads to rigidity. In nature, those trees that can bend with the wind can survive the mightiest of hurricanes, and those that are rigid and brittle cannot survive the tropical gales. In life, those who can bend with the changes in life tend to be considered mentally healthy, and those who are rigid in their belief systems tend to suffer when life throws them curves. More definitions of black and white thinking: Black and White Thinking Cognitive Rigidity Borderline traits are indicative of thinking patterns that are out of the societal norm. What we refer to as black and white thinking is a primitive pattern that dates back to early childhood. When a two year old looks at the world, they see things as going entirely their way, or as a disaster. Mom is here, and feeding me, so she must be good. Mom is in the other room, she therefore doesn't exist (object constancy) so she has abandoned me, and is bad. The inability to change their mind easily is cognitive rigidity. That is what makes BPD so hard to recover from, because, it's all the Non's fault anyway. When someone with BP traits does change their mind, they change it all the way. If it was bad to do something, and they decide it must be good, then it must be completely good. If a person was a good person, and they've done something bad, they must now be a bad person. This of course leads to splitting. However, it's a more general thinking pattern. The entire world is viewed in black and white terms. Much as it would be seen by members of a cult. It is interesting to note that fascist and extremist regimes, who preach forms of totalitarian thought and shun independent thinking are also classic examples of black and white thinking in the political field. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. all were black and white thinkers, and black and white preachers......
No, there you go again. You are making life so freaking complicated. Why don't you do this. Give me a political issue. Any issue. And make an argument to how your bending tree with the wind analogy is going to lead you to your opinion of the issue. Show me how a black and white person looks at that issue and how you are so freaking superior because you have this natural gift of taking a glass of water that is half full and writing a 600 page book about how we really can't answer that question. Write don't you prove your argument instead of throwing shit on the wall to see if it sticks. And if you can't do that, don't bother with additional posts. Your rhetoric is getting really old and tiresome and surely your better days are behind you, go out and enjoy yourself.
A wiser man than I would avoid this inane conversation, but you have a tendency to distort, twist, or even fabricate "facts", and it drives me nuts. Case in point: Clinton never testified before the Supreme Court, as you so clearly remember. (In fact, no one has ever testified before the court - they only hear oral arguments from lawyers) Clinton's testimony was at a civil deposition. He did not spend three hours defining "oral sex". The question was did you have sex. At that point both sides, under the judge's direction attempted to define what exactly was meant by the word "sex". The definition was so narrow that Clinton answered: no. The Grand Jury took up the issue because it was felt that using the most liberal interpretation of the definition proposed in the deposition his answer "could" be truthful, it none the less was evasive at best, and dishonest at worst. It was during Clinton's testimony before the Grand Jury that he tried to explain his understanding and thus his definition of what sex is - from where the famous line "it all depends on what is is" comes. That portion of the testimony was relatively brief, and certainly not three hours. So we are left with but two conclusions: 1) Your memory is seriously flawed. 2) Arguing facts are meaningless to you if twisting them to fit your argument suits your purpose. You may now resume this pointless debate.
Or option 3) This thread is not about Bill clinton's testimony and the only reason I brought it up is to prove a point. I was joking about the three hours. If you thought I was serious about that, well, lighten up. Yes, I know he didn't lie in front of the supreme court, poor choice of words. Mr. JQP, I think you need to read these posts with a little more tongue in cheek. Not all these posts are meant to be taking with the same seriousness of cancer. OK? Relax and enjoy yourself a little. You don't have many posts yet on this board, yet I have already taken a strong disliking to you. You must be a liberal. HAHA, joke, funny, get it. Forget about it.
Issue: Nation building in Iraq funded by the United States Government. Bush ran for president on a platform of being strongly against the process of Nation Building, yet that is exactly what he is doing in Iraq now. Assuming he was not lying when he said that pre-election, the conclusion is that he adjusted his thinking in the wake of 911 and the war on terrorism. He was able to adjust to the situation, and modify his previous line of thought. Nation Building, for some was and is a black and white issue, but apparently for Bush he is flexible on this issue when circumstances change. Of course, his father also was capable of this type of change, i.e. his famous quote: "NO NEW TAXES!" Concerning your comments: "Show me how a black and white person looks at that issue and how you are so freaking superior because you have this natural gift of taking a glass of water that is half full and writing a 600 page book about how we really can't answer that question." Part of the pathology of black and white thinking is projecting people as either superior or inferior, and extending that thought process to one's own self esteem.
Logically speaking, it can't be both. Let's try this question: Are the following examples of ad hominem argument: "are you a hatchet man for the extreme right wing?" "A normal person simply admits they were wrong." "you practice selective reading" "you don't look at the entire picture" "someone would support this type of journalism is indicative of some pathology" "Are you just another common run of the mill internet flamer?"
Your comments directed to me concerning wild/msfe don't follow the content nor context of the previous discussion, and as such are both non sequitur and irrelevant to the issues discussed. They are dismissed summarily. Currenlty I see you are employing the parrot attack/defense in the most recent post I am responding to. Polly want a cracker? Your defense via attack is common, very common, and not in the least unexpected. Whatever point you are trying to make, is banal in nature, concept and obvious lack of effect.