Who is attacking America?

[August]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

This is the sort of wingnut candidate you get when you think a term like 'compromise' is for weaklings and surrender monkeys, insteading of realizing our entire political system is based on it.

Compromise doesn't seem to work any more.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Compromise doesn't seem to work any more.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the standoffish attitude in Washington that's lead to record low approval ratings.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Unfortunately, that seems to be the standoffish attitude in Washington that's lead to record low approval ratings.

Yep but unfortunately it doesn't matter what the rest of the country might think. Congresscritters only have to please the voters of their district. That's how nuts like Pelosi stay in power.

Although I'm not a supporter it must be said that Santorum has managed to remain a senator of a state with a fairly rich religious and ethnic diversity.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Although I'm not a supporter it must be said that Santorum has managed to remain a senator of a state with a fairly rich religious and ethnic diversity.

Past tense. He got stomped by 18% in 2006.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Past tense. He got stomped by 18% in 2006.

Still 12 years of Senatorial service and 4 years as a Rep means he won four times so I think the point stands.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Past tense. He got stomped by 18% in 2006.

Dude got spanked by Bob Casey in the largest defeat in Pennsylvania senatorial history. PA didn't want him; I'll bet that the nation won't either. The guy was my senator for quite some time. No thanks this time around.

Now, to the most important matter of the thread--The Church Lady. I take particular grievance with the use of the early 90's as 'old school' SNL. While the early 90's is a golden age in the franchise, the Radner/Belishi/Aykroyd/Chase cast of the late 70's is clearly the old school. Dana Carvey is a brilliant comic, but he is not true old school.

Oh, and SNL needs to be put out to pasture. Hasn't been funny for 15 years.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Dude got spanked by Bob Casey in the largest defeat in Pennsylvania senatorial history. PA didn't want him; I'll bet that the nation won't either. The guy was my senator for quite some time. No thanks this time around.

It was the worst loss for an incumbent Republican senator ever, anywhere. That's a pretty resounding "heck no!" on his positions. I was reading an article that said that's pretty much a preview of what could happen if he got the nomination. He doesn't poll well with women and independents and that's what will kill him in a general election.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It was the worst loss for an incumbent Republican senator ever, anywhere. That's a pretty resounding "heck no!" on his positions. I was reading an article that said that's pretty much a preview of what could happen if he got the nomination. He doesn't poll well with women and independents and that's what will kill him in a general election.

He is polling well in the primary, but this is largely the hardcore R's that really like his social stance. They'll vote 'anything but the community manager' position. For me, a high priest is no improvement over a failed community manager. It's all about what rights you want to give up. Obama curtails financial rights. Santorm wants to curtail your civil rights. I feel no hope in this election process.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by August

Compromise doesn't seem to work any more.

Meaning?

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Meaning?

Compromise now a days is somebody caving after the other side kicks and screams long enough

[August]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Meaning?

Meaning that compromise in government does not seem to achieve anything except to make one side or the other have to make the same argument from a worse position than than they did originally.

Then there are political positions that just cannot be compromised without betraying ones beliefs. For example a pro-life person can only compromise their position by allowing some fetus' to be murdered instead of all. That's not compromise, that's hypocrisy just as it would be for a pro-choice person to compromise into allowing some abortions to be denied.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by August

Meaning that compromise in government does not seem to achieve anything except to make one side or the other have to make the same argument from a worse position than than they did originally.

Then there are political positions that just cannot be compromised without betraying ones beliefs. For example a pro-life person can only compromise their position by allowing some fetus' to be murdered instead of all. That's not compromise, that's hypocrisy just as it would be for a pro-choice person to compromise into allowing some abortions to be denied.

Unfortunatley for a western Goverment, its supposed to be their job to cater for more than one set of mainstream beliefs, not just bulldoze though what they believe in, in its entirety.
Maybe people with extreme views or uncompromising beliefs should stay out of democratic governments that rule free nations. (and move to a county that is run by a dictatorship)

[Skybird]

http://www.wisdomquotes.com/topics/compromise/

Not easy.

Tyranny has been shown bad by history. Democracy has been shown bad by history, the costs of tyranny you see early, the costs of democracy you see late. I do not like both, I no longer claim the one to be better than the other. Functioning for a while both can. Surviving forever none can. But I have to offer no alternative different from saying that man would be well-advised if he immediately becomes sane, reasonable and well-educated.

Maybe it is another reminder that dualism and inner contradiction seems to be a build-in feature of all things that exist.

Could it be that a final, a perfect solution simply does not exist, and cannot exist?

In the end, everybody of us stands for himself only, and it is our conscience only that we need to accept accountability towards. Which can be a one- or two-way dilemma, because our conscience is just this - OUR conscience. Not the others'.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Unfortunatley for a western Goverment, its supposed to be their job to cater for more than one set of mainstream beliefs, not just bulldoze though what they believe in, in its entirety.
Maybe people with extreme views or uncompromising beliefs should stay out of democratic governments that rule free nations. (and move to a county that is run by a dictatorship)

And who defines what "extreme views" are that disqualify somebody from offices? Just think of the different ideas of freedom of speech. Is freedom of speech covering the intentional personal hurting of the other? Is criticism of Islam an offence that must be exclusded from free speech, like it is being claimed time and again? Political correctness, anonymous pressure from public climate to supress unwanted opinions, what about that? If somebody states he is motivated by religion, does this deserve respect that he claims for himself, or exactly the opposite, as I claim? Has the minority in a democratic system the right to prevent the majorty from forming a majority decision, like filibustering implies? Individual rights versuus communal rights, freedom to make individual profits at the cost of communal losses - what about that?

Is freedom regulated to some degree by generally enforced rules still freedom, or is even the taking away of the smallest jota the total loss of freedom alltogether? Is freedom only where anarchy is, is any setting of rules, law and order thus the absence of freedom? Is freedom the law of the jungle, the law of the strongest?

Or are rules needed to even allow a window of opportunity for freedom to unfold? Where does responsibility fall into it all? Is there responsibility at all? Is all rules proclaimed by ethical systems, just arbitary and worthless?

You see, its not that obvious an issue. And imho: it is impossible to find a satisfying solution. Thus there will be always cheating, conflict, and the attempt to rule by the argument of having the longer teeth and the louder voice.

There are principles that for me are non-negotiable. I would wish they would be shared by the society I live in. But it is not like that, it is exactly the opposite. that is what brings me into such an unsolvable comflict with the society I live in. We are at odds, them and me. I cannot help it, the only thing I can do is to stick to these my principles nevertheless, no matter what.

And maybe that is what principles really are about: Not collective efforts, but individual ones.

In a book series that influenced me quite a lot when I was a teen, a science fiction series for young readers, the protagonist got told by his wife this: "What you believe in, you should be willing to live and to die for."

I think that is what it's about.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And who defines what "extreme views" are that disqualify somebody from offices? Just think of the different ideas of freedom of speech. Is freedom of speech covering the intentional personal hurting of the other? I criticism of islam an offence that must be exlcusded from free speech? Political correctness, anonymous pressure of public climate to supress unwanted opinions, what about that? If somebody states he is motivated by religion, does this deserve respect that he claims for himself, or excatly the opposite, as I claim? Has the minority in a democratic system the right to prevent the majorty from forming a majority decision, like filibustering implies?

Is freedom regulated to some degree by generally enforced rules meastill freedom, or is even he taking away of the smallest jota the total loss of freedom alltogether? Is freedom only where anarchy is, is any setting fo rules, law and order thus the absence of freedom?

Or are rules needed to even allow a window of opportunity for freedom to unfold?

You see, its not that obivious an issue. And imho: it is impossible to find a satisfying solution. Thus there will be always cheating, conflict, and the attempt to rule by the argument of having the longer teeth and the louder voice.


There are principles that for me are non-negotiable. I would wish they would be shared by the society I live in. But it is not like that, it is exactly the opposite. I cannot help it, the only thing I can do is to stick to these my principles nevertheless, no matter what.

And maybe that is what principles really are about: Not collective efforts, but individual ones.

In a book series that influenced me quite a lot when I was a teen, a science fiction series, the protagonsit got told by his wife this: "What you believe in, you should be willing to live and to die for."

I think that is what it's about.

I meant maybe they should stay out of it volentarily, not be forced to stay out... not realistic of course.
You're right that by the definition of freedom, no where in the world is 100% free and nor should it be, if people are left to be entirely free, anarchy takes hold.
Obviously humans need stability as much as they need freedom so we must balance the two to get the best results,
again, compromise
Im pretty sure most self proclaimed anarcists would crap their pants if they had to live in true anarchy.