|
Honest opinions
I think a person should put forth his honest opinions and ideas as he sees fit (within legal and ethical limits). I don't really see a need for one to bash someone else's opinion to foster his own. If one's ideas are superior to someone else's, I believe the reading public will see that almost immediately.
Rev |
The Great Political Divide
Originally posted by Mach 1
Quote:
From abortion-on-demand to ever-higher taxes to restricting our freedoms with failed policies such as gun control to the destruction of our once-fine public school system with PC nonsense and other major errors. From the transformation of our college campuses from places of learning and exploration of ideas into liberal indoctrination centers where nothing but leftist dogma is tolerated, to the corsening of our popular culture and the resulting disrespect for our country, it's flag and it's people: it is my studied opinion that 'liberalism' (leftism, really) has done harm to this country. Conservatism and liberalism are on two sides of an enormous divide (think of the Grand Canyon) and as they are basically opposed to each other's philosophy and ideology, there can be no 'happy medium'. You cannot mix oil and water and have a resulting 'happy medium' liquid that is not half one and half the other. They don't mix. Neither do liberal and conservative political ideology and philosophy. Hence, I remain a conservative and will oppose liberal political ideas whenever I find them and have the time to do so. Thus it ever was. :) |
Re: Honest opinions
Originally posted by Rev :
Quote:
Most internet messageboards that deal with politics also are debating forums. While I can postulate a 'conservative' position without bashing liberalism in the process the 'liberal' response will be to attack my position and substitute the opposite position in it's place, in most cases. Conversely, if I wish to dispute a liberal position I have no choice but to point our it's error and explain why this is wrong and/or won't work. To some, any opposition to what they believe, politically, is 'bashing'. In addition, to successfully contend against another's political position, one is almost required to use negative words and even ridicule to make one's point in a manner that will resonate with others. My experience debating politics on internet forums is that it's not English Gentlemen quietly sipping tea while exchanging pleasantries but a rather rough arena where mockery and ridicule is rampant and even when absent, hard words often are exchanged by advocates and little concern is given to decorum, within the usual loose messageboard guidelines that preclude personal attacks. Even then, things can get ugly, as this thread has shown. "Bashing' seems to be a relative term and while I don't always need to 'bash' to make a point, in a debate, it's generally necessay to pick apart the opponents argument. We do what is necessary. |
Re: Re: Honest opinions
Quote:
I do still feel that it really isn't necessary to be very venomous in defending conservative or liberal views. IMHO, the value of these specific views pretty much speak for themselves. I do also understand that those who endure personal attacks because of their conservative or liberal views may also have a tendency to lash out at perceived "liberal" or "conservative" enemies". Rev |
my 2 cents
I am not a total wiz on the government, but I am thankful for every freedom I have. Sure never will everybody agree on what the government does.
One of the only things I really disagree with is the Justice system. Why is it that sex offenders and drugs dealers get off as easy as they do. I live in the meth capital of Illinois. People get busted in my town for manufacturing and other heavy drug charges and within a year they're back on the streets. It just doesnt seem right. Public schools is another thing. I just recently graduated high school and I'm currently attending a local junior college. I have came to the conclusion that most teachers in the K-12 range are just baby sitters. There are only a few of my former teachers I have respect for. About 75% of the time we were just given busy work so we weren't bothering the teacher. Anyway back to the freedom part, I love having the choice of going on to college instead of having to go work in a factory making peanuts like in other dictatorship, communist and 3rd world countries. A lot of people don't realize their freedoms because most of us Americans are spoiled. Face it we are. Mr 50, I respect your knowledge and point of views. I agree with you on the Bible being incorrect due to translation and such, but I am a firm believer in God and Jesus. Everyone has a plan they don't know about. Another way I look at sitting aroung arguing about something on the internet isn't really going to solve anything. I agree about immigration being a bad issue but could you imagine being in one of these immigrants shoes. I know I wouldn't want to live in China, Ethiopia, Russia, Cuba or any of these countries within dictatorship. It's the immigrants that come to our country to do nothing other for terrorist purposes that are the ones to give the bootin to. Maybe if everyone got a taste of other country's freedoms they would change their minds on being disrespectful towards America. Well thats all I got to say about that. -Nathan |
Re: my 2 cents
Originally posted by nastyn8:
Quote:
Quote:
A combination of prison overcrowding, too-liberal judges who seem to believe that drug use is a 'victimless crime' plus the fact that a lot of drug crimes are plea - bargained down to far less serious offenses all adds up to drug criminals getting away with far too much. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that you've been reading the posts in this thread, have considered them and have your own opinions on some of the issues raised that compelled you to post simply proves my point. :) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Please post again. |
My problem with government today is that really all politicians are pretty much the same. You can take Bush and Kerry for instance. Bush is a Republican, holds the Christian beliefs that Republicans typically do, however his administration spends more than the typical republican administration and has a much larger government than most conservatives are in favor of. Then there is Kerry. Despite his issues of a horribloe voting record and never having a true backbone to him he doesnt exactly hold up to your typical Democrat for the working class. I mean what member of the working class has 4-5 homes and goes windsurfing off of nantucket?
I am a moderate republican with many libertarian views. I am fiscally conservative and I dont feel the government has any right in saying which sex's can marry and who can or cant get an abortion. However it really sickens me to see both parties are pretty much growing closer and closer to being the same. Thats also another reason why I hate the two party system. Im not sure who im going to vote for. I dont like Bush but I hate Kerry even more. I may end up voting Libertarian even though I dont agree with all of thier views either. |
The Art of Compromise
Originally posted by MidNiteBlu 5.0 :
Quote:
The Bush administration has produced high government spending and expansion, which conservatives oppose on principle. However, almost every conservative I know will vote for Bush because he is far, far closer to conservative ideals than Kerry could ever be, which is pretty obvious. Quote:
To claim that both parties are 'the same' (or close to it) is incorrect. Do you truly believe that a Democrat president such as Al Gore would have responded to 9/11 the way President Bush did? Immediately going on offense? That a Democrat president would have asked for and gotten big tax cuts, as Bush did? These are major, major issues and the difference between Democrats and Republicans today is wide - and stark. That you take the Libertarian view on abortion and same-sex marriage is not uncommon. However, these issues are minor compared to the overriding issue of the war on terrorism and to a lesser extent, the economy, which Bush's tax cuts helped improve and recover from the 2000-2001 recession. I would think long and hard before voting Libertarian. This is a critical election and while even I, a conservative, don't agree with everything Bush has done, I fully appreciate what he has done in the war on terror and the economy and I cannot even consider the thought of a John Kerry in charge of this nation's defenses. Not for a moment. Remember, the only politician who will ever have the exact same views as you do is the guy looking back at you in the mirror every morning. Bush isn't perfect but he's done a good job under difficult circumstances and in my view, deserves to be re-elected. |
MR 50 what is your opinion on Ralph Nadar and the Green party?
I was told that they were against coal mining and a lot of other industry, also that they were responsible for emissions laws and trying to do away with the big block engines. When the last election was up a bunch of the dopers at my school were talking about that if Ralph Nadar was to get elected as president he was going to legalize marijuana. Can you imagine what chaos that would cause. Later |
As far as i am concerned a vote for Either Bush or Kerry is a waste and would be me chosing the lesser of two evils. I have been doing some research on the libertarian party and like what they have to say. I am voting libertarian this year. Screw the other two.
|
Political potpourri
Originally posted by nastyn8 :
Quote:
The Green Party certainly hates cars on principle and considers them to be the tool of Satan (or something akin to that). Emissions laws have been around for decades - long before the establishment of the Green Party, however, they always want more and more restrictions on auto emissions - to the point of absurdity as well as unfeasibility. Ralph Nader, now 70 and an attorney by trade, gained fame with a 1965 book about the 'dangers' of the Chevrolet Corvair, an early front-wheel drive econocar. He helped speed the car's demise and it went out of production in 1969. Not a great loss. That launched his career as a consumer crusader, mostly focused on the evils of American automobiles and their safety issues, which - back in the '60's and '70's - were plentiful, to be fair about it. Nader went on to be involved in many other 'consumer' issues over the decades and has always opposed 'big business', which he considers the focus of evil in the modern world. (O.K., I'm exaggerating a tad, but I'm not THAT far off). These days, he's playing politics and running for president, just to piss off the Democrats, which he considers - right along with the Republicans - to be effectively 'owned' by those eeeeevil 'corporate interests'. 'Big business' is a major contributor to both political parties because political decisions made in Washington in the form of tax laws and regulations can make or break any large company, so the investors and executives of the large corporations shovel tons of money to both Democrat and Republican candidate's campaigns in order to gain 'access' to the politicians, if he or she is elected. Take away Washington's power to tax and regulate business as it does and that money would dry up, fast. It's a system that is flawed but probably not about to change anytime soon, no matter who is elected in November. The Libertarian party is against the drug laws on a broad principle of individual freedom that, in my view, ignores the wider and equally important concern for a functioning society that isn't encumbered by a higher level of drug addicts being drugged and cared for by us non-druggie taxpayers. Ralph Nader believes that 'marijuana is a medicine' so at best, he's 'soft' on drugs, at worst, he's all for them. We have to take our 'medicine', y'know. Fringe party candidates have always appealed to either special interest groups (anti-business, pro-drugs, you name it) and will always have some attraction for some people. Those who don't like the major party candidates always have another party to vote for, even if that candidate has no chance to win. It becomes a 'protest' vote. In our form of democracy the fringe parties (there are about a dozen on the presidential ballot this year) have a right to exist and to try to persuade as many people as possible to vote for them, for whatever reason. Collectively, they get a tiny percent of the total vote and rarely make a statistical difference, except in razor-close elections, such as we had in 2000. Nader's candidacy (on the Green Party ticket that year - he's an independent this time around) very likely hurt Al Gore and so, helped George W. Bush. This time, Nader is a very, very minor factor and while he'll drain some votes from Kerry, he probably won't affect the outcome of the election, which I predict will be a decisive win by Bush. I hope this helps clarify things for you. :) |
Re: Political potpourri
Quote:
The American public was not used to the weight distibution of a rear engine car and accidents did occur. Swing-axle rear suspensions didn't help either. Same with Volkswagen beetles and some Porsches that had the swing axle rear susp[ension. The Corvair may have had some other handling issues as well, but it was kind of a neat little car IMHO. The Falcon was introduced by Ford as a direct result and as a competitor to the Corvair. I think the Corvair came out in about 1960. Rev |
Re: Re: Political potpourri
Originally posted by Rev :
Quote:
The Chevrolet Corvair did come out in '60 and I believe that it was quite popular for awhile but in an era of huge cars that used mass to 'protect' the occupants in a crash, an accident with a Corvair and, say, a '57 Chevy would usually mean serious injury or death to the occupants of the tiny, rear-engined Corvair. That and the 'handling issues' you mentioned were the basis of Ralph Nader's book. He blamed the GM corporation for knowingly producing a 'dangerous' car that was really only dangerous for an inexperienced driver or because of the prevalence of much larger vehicles on the road at that point in time (early 1960's). Once 'cheap' gas became scarce in the 1970's and federal gas mileage requirements became more stringent, smaller cars began to become more popular and we all know where it went from there. By the 80's, the big cars of yesteryear were already dinosaurs and the small but peppy and efficient cars from Japan were the rage. The Chevy Corvair was ahead of it's time and the Ford Falcon was simply a forerunner to the Escort, which sold millions. |
Corvair
No biggy there. to be honest with you I hate these cars. they look like they're made so cheap. A neighbor of mine has 3.
I get tired of looking at the damn things |
Re: Corvair
Quote:
Rev |
I believe the hotter versions were called Monza's. They were capable of about 115-120 mph. The rear weight did cause the rear end to slide around in a sharp corner at speed. Once side ways they were likely to roll.
I was around in those days and couple of my young friends did flip these cars. They weren't nearly as much fun as the later Chevells and Camero's, Fairlanes and Mustangs. But more fun than a Chevy II I always thought they were trying to produce a sporty VW bug with the Corvair |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 AM. |