Do you support any sort of campaign finance reform? Should we let anyone contribute as they wish?
Ucci, thanks for putting this into perspective for me.
Hmmm… there’s a difference between disagreeing with one side of a debate and not wanting them to benefit equally with everyone else. One could say “I think the cure to cancer is to dump melted chocolate all over one’s head, and if I get into power, I’m going to enforce this policy in health care all across the nation.” I could disagree with this vehemently and not want this guy or his adherents to ever get into power; I would want people like myself and my adherents to get into power so that we can allow the medical industry to continue in their search for the cure to cancer in the usual scientific manner. But that doesn’t mean I want to the other faction to get cancer and die; I would want everyone, even them, to benefit from the cure should it be found.
I know that’s probably not want you nor Liz meant, nor what you think the other meant, but I wanted to put it out there just for clarification. To sum up: not wanting the other faction to have power isn’t always “being unfair” and it isn’t always at the expense of “the people”.
Keeping with your analogy, the problem isn’t in you not wanting these other people from getting into power because you disagree with them. The problem arises when the only way to solve cancer is your way. All of their supporters, and how they raise money, are blocked, legally. That is one of the problems with what Liz suggests is that it is a predetermined right way to fight for a political cause often revolves around how you side fights. It is fine to think the chocolate coalition is wrong, to work against them, but it is not fine to make it illegal (or detrimental) to be in the chocolate coalition…
Personal Example: I find Marxism and its derivatives to be foolish, bad policy all to often promoted by people that believe “they” would be the ones in charge and so have no problem pressing it forward. It could be considered a OK action to stop these people from gathering, from fundraising, from attempting to push their policies through. (I personally would find such an action to be at least as repugnant as I find Marxism).
A standing theory, that they have never proved wrong, is that such an action is OK with the progressives. This idea has been formed not just from seeing their actions, but also actual published progressive books supporting the idea. While the right thinks that the left is at worst dangerously wrong, the left thinks the right is Evil. Evil people do not have to be dealt with fairly. I believe this is an aspect of what Ucc is explaining.
They are going to anyway- with some Pac or special organization or arrangement. I’d like all financing to be public, so people can know where money is coming from, especially for donations over some high amount. I’d like to keep foreign money out of our elections. I can’t think of much justification for restrictions other than that.
My gripe is that none of this was presented as Liz's master plan on how to make sure liberals don't lose elections anymore. If that's what she wanted and that's what she thought would benefit the people, then this would be a very different conversation- for one thing, I'd have to admit that her proposals would probably [i]work[/i] to that end.
Your analogy breaks down because dumping chocolate all over one's head is a neutral action- we all get sticky, and we all avoid cancer if it works. What Liz wants is to restrict how some people participate in the political process, but not others. How is that a desire for what's better for everyone?
No. You aren't. You're seeing people on T.V., or hearing about what they did interpreted through the mouth of your favorite media personalities. You didn't follow Bush around and observe him doing shit. I'm not being facetious here- I can't even spell it. The people who are actually trained and paid to discern who is a sociopath or a psychopath would never make that diagnosis on the basis of what they heard about somebody on a T.V. show. If you can't see the difference between "Diagnosing somebody with a mental condition on the basis of observation" and "Forming an opinion of somebody based on what I heard on the internet about them", then I don't know what to tell you.
Of course they fucking do! I haven’t heard a good word about Hitler or Stalin in my entire life! How could that not play a role in what I think of them? I’ve looked at the facts as much as I am able and as best I can tell, the consensus about their actions is correct. What I’m not going to do is diagnose them with some particular mental condition because I don’t know them.
But you don't know their response. You don't know what's in their conscience. You say you aren't judging based on political ideology, but theirs and yours are literally all the information you have. You have to understand- thinking it's reasonable to talk about Bush and Hitler in the same sentence as though they are guilty of the same kinds of things makes you a political radical. You're just using the language of mental health to justify your radicalism, which is exactly what I expressed concern to gib about. It's a recursive problem- gib wants mental diagnosis to be part of the political process to help us pick good candidates. You want to use mental diagnoses as pejoratives to sling at people who do things you are ideologically opposed to. The result? Your ideological statements gain evidence and support purely through the means you use to phrase them. "If I call Bush a psychopath instead of an asshole, my beliefs become stronger, because a psychopath is a particular thing that nobody wants as a president". Swap out the pejorative with something that sounds more professional, a little equivocation, and [i]boom,[/i] you have an educated opinion instead of just invective.
Haha.
If this is indeed what Liz wants, I think it’s a bit extreme, but that doesn’t mean she wants conservatives or progressives to suffer any more than my restricting those who want to poor chocolate all over cancer patients’ heads from getting into the medical profession means that I want them to get cancer. I believe that by restricting them, I’m contributing to helping fight cancer for everyone. I may be wrong–maybe dumping chocolate on their heads does cure cancer–and I may be extreme–maybe barring them from the medical profession is too much–but that says nothing of my desire to help everyone.
I’ll let Liz speak for herself about weather this represents her views or not.
I speak for myself, as I should and have tried to do throughout this thread, I what I say is accepted as that.
Ucci, I’ve tried to find a correlation between the AFP nationwide, TV commercial (advertisement) and Michael Moore’s, released in movie theaters worldwide, documentary films. For the life of me, I can’t see it! It’s like trying to correlate casaba melons and zucchini! They both grow on vines and that’s it. I can’t describe it any other way and I do not understand why you continue to try to compare the two. I really, truly, don’t!
Nor do I understand why you continue to try to ascribe words to me–put words in my mouth–that I’ve never said.
You are a conservative. Yeah, Rah Rah, Huzzah!, beat the drums softly.
So?
I’m not a conservative. I’m not a progressive. If I feel campaign financing, as it is today, needs to be ‘reformed,’ than that’s my opinion and the ‘reform’ should be extended to include any single-source contributor no matter what s/he ‘backs.’ I’d say the same thing about George Soros if I read a headline that said, “George Soros has promised $3M to the DNC to defeat John Boehner and the Republican party in the next election.” I haven’t read such a headline.
As for religion in politics, I’ve already said that I wouldn’t think of ‘ousting’ a candidate because of her/his religious affiliation. However, the Founders were Deists–and believed in some sort of ‘Higher Power,’ that couldn’t be defined and had no place in politics. They were also Masons, so our currency exhibits Masonic symbols–the pyramid and the All-Seeing Eye, for example–but I think the Constitution makes it very clear, because it’s about the structure of a federal government, that there is a separation that should exist between whatever anyone holds religiously and politics. There is no state religion; there is no religion. The US is supposed to be a secular confederation of secular states.
I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic. I do not deny that, nor do I deny what I learned. I’ve just tried to remove the Church, as an institution, while studying its basic philosophy, and either accepting or rejected parts of that philosophy. I would never try to convince any one else to live as I live. I also don’t want anyone else telling me to live as they live–especially not if anything like that could become a perquisite for living. By that, I mean I don’t want to have religion a part of the legal requirements for the things that are required–for marriage, in what hospital I can receive treatment, whether or not I can own a home where I want to, where and how I can be buried–and on and on. Leave Religion (but not religious people) out of politics!
Politics in the US–and maybe in the world–are no longer (is no longer?)–a question of what political party is in ascendance. To me, it’s a question of which corporation will achieve control. We’ve spent a century under the control of the Seven Sisters of the oil corporations, but we may not have realized it. Now, it seems to me, the struggle for control of politics has expanded to include pharmas, agricorps, energy corps, you name it. The consumer market has gone way beyond simple manufacturing of ‘real’ goods to involve every aspect of our daily lives–and it’s global.
We are all responsible for the choices we make. I hope, because I can only hope, that the choices we make are our own rather than a corporation’s choice.
You said I shouldn’t compare the Koch brothers with George Soros and choose Soros because of his childhood background. I don’t; I choose neither. Really!
But I must, because I’m biased think about how the Koch brothers have interests in ‘fracking’ for natural gas–as well as petroleum refining, chemicals, fertilizers, the overall use of petroleum by-products in such industries, as well as the development of plastics, building pipelines, ranching, stock market commodity trading, etc., etc., etc. George Soros made his billions by gambling in the stock market.
That’s about as far as I’ve gotten in the research I’ve done, so far. Yes, what I think I’ve learned is undoubtedly biased.
But I’ve also read conservative publications on line and have tried to understand that PoV, as well. If you don’t believe me, so be it. I’m not going to be around 30yrs. from now, but I hope that some remnant of my life will be and I hope I’ll be able to contribute some small part to a future for them that isn’t one of dominance by one philosophy if it means repression of their way of living.
To me, that doesn’t mean involvement in party politics. It does, however, mean being able to choose what I believe is my best choice for the future.
Enjoy, --Liz 
I get what you’re saying- I think capitalism is good for socialists for example, even if they aren’t smart enough to realize it. But that’s not the same thing as saying that if I take measures to make sure socialists are banned from public speaking or whatever, I’m doing it for the good of the socialists.
Why? Why are you trying to find a correlation between one specific example of a commercial released by a group you don’t like, and Michael Moore’s entire body of work? Nobody asked you to, and I don’t see how it’s pertinent. How about we just say that that one example is a really bad commercial that shouldn’t have been made, and that’s why you insist on using it as your example in the first place (God knows I didn’t pick it), and we move on to the general question of if privately funded T.V. commercials are somehow worse for the political process than privately funded documentaries?
Again- a corporation makes a political commercial saying people should believe A. Michael Moore makes a documentary saying that people should believe not-A. You seem to what to curtail the first, but not the second. Tell me why one is damaging to the political process in a way that the other is not. It doesn't matter if you think they are apples and oranges, you should be able to tell me why one is damaging to the political process and the other is not, in the same way that I can tell you why mosquitos are a public health threat and wool socks are not- even though mosquitos and wool socks are completely different from each other. So answer the question, already.
THAT part of what you said is -semi-nonpartisan. It’s a bad idea, but it’s nonpartisan. But you’ve also criticized corporations making political ads, religion having influence over the political process, and conservative lobbying groups influencing public opinion. I mean sure, we both know that limitations on single source donations will hurt conservatives a little more because they tend to get the wealthy vote, but that’s a mild enough bias that I can overlook it; the real problem though is that it’s easy to come down against this or that sort of campaign donation when you already know the schools, the journalists and hollywood are going to put out your political message for free no matter what gets donated to whom.
That's the thing I want to make very clear to you, because it has a huge impact on how I interpret what you're saying; you can disagree, but from MY point of view, almost every university, almost every journalist, and almost every hollywood movie is going to advocate for the progressive/DNC agenda without the democrats having to spend a dime on it. That's what I think- not important if you agree, just understand thats the perspective I'm coming from. So when a progressive comes along and says we need to put controls on who can donate to political campaigns, I can't help but think "Oh, well, how convenient that would be FOR YOU." It's like Israel saying to the palestinians "Let's both agree not to use suicide bombers and attacks on civilian population centers". It sounds good, but Israel has tanks and targeted airstrike capability so obviously they make out way better on that deal.
So you're going to have to explain to me what this means. Suppose I think abortion is immoral because it says so in my holy book, and therefore I donate to candidates that want to outlaw abortion. Should I be stopped? Suppose I am a candidate who thinks abortion is immoral because it says so in my holy book- should I not be allowed to run for office? Should I be allowed to run for office, but only if I publicly condemn abortion for reasons other than the ones I actually believe? Suppose you think abortion is immoral because it says so in your favorite NON holy book. What should you get to do that the religious person doesn't get to do? If the Supreme Court or Congress or whomever discover that the majority of people who think abortion is wrong think it for religious reasons, does that mean ipso facto that abortion should be permitted? If I can convince people that abortion is immoral without mentioning religion at all, but a journalist goes through my trash and discovers that I'm secretly a very religious person, are my arguments thereby invalidated?
What's the substance here, in other words?
That sounds like you should be completely happy with the way things are right now. So why bring it up? What is it that you think religion i(not religious people) is doing in politics that it ought not be?
I never said I wasn’t happy with the way things are now with respect to religion and politics. I just hope it stays that way.
I’ve become bored with your replies to me, ucci. I’ve gone way beyond feeling frustrated by them. Your attempts at discussion are feeble, at best. I’m done with it.
That may be true, but you can tell yourself that and believe it. You could tell yourself that eventually they’ll come around–after seeing how a capitalist system benefits them too–and then all our rivalries will disolve.
Perhaps I’m belabouring the point, but I want to stress it for deeper reasons than just arbitering between you and Liz. I feel it’s important in these debates to remember that at the deepest levels, each side of every faction (or most factions, I guess), we’re all still striving to achieve the same ends: happiness for all, liberty for all, equality of respect and opportunity, etc. ← I realize that some (or all) of these are open to debate and even clear definition, but my point is that I think the majority of people, regardless of what side of this or that debate/faction they’re on, would like, and maybe are still trying, to cooperate with each other, to find peace and agreement with each other, an arrangement by which everyone can live happily together. That is to say, there is still, I believe, on some level, in most people, the desire and intent to find some arrangement by which everyone can get along. I feel that I have to stress this because if I don’t, I fear that we’ll be all the more likely to lose sight of it, and then it will be all the more likely that we won’t be striving for a common goal any longer (and then we become like the Jews and the Arabs, or the Catholics and the Protestants, or the blacks and the KKK, etc.).
Hmm… why is that? I mean, why do you think liberal ideologies (is that right?) got into the school system, journalism, and Hollywood? Does it just appeal to the masses more?
As for the religion thing, I think the purpose behind the separation between church and state is to prevent laws from being created which are based exclusively (read: without any regard for what the people want) on religious doctrine. So same sex marriage being illegal because the Bible says it’s wrong, or because God says so, and not because that’s the way the majority want it. A system in which church and state are separate is a system in which the laws are determine by popular vote.
I have a response to this bit.
Many studies have shown throughout time particular people are naturally drawn towards specific fields. It holds true for every type of person, black, white, woman, males. Every division, if left to their own devices naturally gravitate towards those fields. Many claims of racism, sexism and other stupid arguments, have been made as a result of these movements, so they are well documented. Is it not hard to believe that something like political philosophy is also motivating in the same ways. The cultures that create a Conservative is going to respect and drive a person towards a field, the same is true for Liberals, or any other aspect. That these fields attract specific groups is going to result in a natural insulation against outside viewpoints… To a point… (Source (Its a couple of paragraphs down))
I stand with, based on this argument and a understanding that Liberals are drawn towards Journalism, that Conservatives interact with Liberal opinions far more than the reverse. People have to seek out Conservative opinion, Liberal opinion is everywhere, so much so most people don’t even notice it.
Don’t believe me? Take a month, listen to nothing but Conservative radio and read Conservative books (I can provide a very good list). Then “rejoin” the populous, go to a movie. You’ll start to see how saturated it is. It’s like air, it takes being removed to really notice.
As to this, at current, most studies still show the US to be a right leaning country, so the masses in your question accounts for less than 50%. It is closer to 35% (with about 40% being conservative…). I think this is a problem of American Media being the only thing “outsiders” see. It would be a bad idea to assume it represents most of the country.
Eric, you are so funny. (Your source is a conservative magazine–chuckle, chuckle)
It should be no surprise to anyone that the US has always been rather more conservative than liberal ever since the first stirrings of revolution against the British Empire back in the mid-18th century. The thing is there are different types of both conservative and liberal ideologies and they both are often intermixed. People can be, and are, conservative in some ways and liberal in others. But the basic ideologies within our culture came to us from an “aristocracy” of landed gentry who brought their social customs and mores with them.
The influx of immigration during the 19th century also brought various, sometimes unfamiliar, cultures to the US, and with the cultures came stereotypes that had been held onto for generations among the people from outside the particular culture. What does it matter?
Not much, any more, although, rightly or wrongly, we still harbor great respect for the wealthy, propertied ‘upper classes,’ and look down on the poor. The world is far from a class-less society.
So let’s try to establish some basics–some agreed to definitions of the various labels–without mentioning political parties.
A liberal is much more a social liberal than is a conservative. A liberal feels it’s the government’s responsibility to provide for the health and well-being of all citizens through taxation: a conservative feels providing for the health and well-being of citizens should be a private, charitable responsibility wherein the donor chooses to provide the necessary capital.
A liberal sees war as a last resort, only, and feels cuts should come from the Military budget: a conservative wants a strong Military, and wants a ‘balanced budget’ that doesn’t reduce the Military budget at all.
A liberal feels that education should be provided for all and should be subsidized by the government: a conservative feels the government should have no involvement in education.
A liberal feels regulations for the safety and welfare of citizens is part of the government’s responsibility to the citizens: a conservative feels regulation isn’t needed–that the people should be able to choose for themselves. A liberal feels the consumer market, including the financial industries, should be regulated to try to ensure against dramatic swings in consumer prices (among other things): a conservative feels the market should remain free to adjust itself when adjustment is needed.
A liberal is more likely to welcome change and new ideas: a conservative is much more of a traditionalist.
These are my thoughts and they aren’t weighted or ordered in any way.
To introduce a non sequitur–(Eric, this is non; non, have you met Eric?) There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about the ‘separation of Church and State.’ Nothing! The exclusionary clause of the 1st Amendment is the only place in the entire document where religion is mentioned. There is nothing in the Constitution that defines marriage. Marriage is never mentioned! The proposed DREAM Children Act is based on an 1897 SCOTUS decision based on the 14th Amendment, the same Amendment the current SCOTUS used to allow personhood to corporations, yet conservatives don’t like DREAM children.
Conservative magazines abound. Every business publication is conservative; conservative political journals sit side by side with liberal journals on every well-managed library and/or newsstand. No one needs to “seek out” conservatism-- it’s all there in the print media. And it’s there in television and radio, as well. I don’t know about movies. They’re not part of our entertainment budget.
That’s it for now, gentlemen. I wish the thread hadn’t taken this turn. Liberal vs Conservative is a dead-end discussion, in my opinion.
Enjoy,
Liz –
Duplicate post.
Sure. The set of positions we can imagine someone having on mistaken grounds of 'being for everybody's own good' basically includes every position.
Hollywood directors, journalists and academics aren't 'the masses'. They're about as far abstracted from them as you can get, so I dunno what you mean by your speculation. BUT to answer your question, it goes back to Aristotle's notions of art- being an artist is somebody who can present good commentary about something, not somebody who is actually knowledgeable about the thing they are commenting on. The example he gives is Homer- who, despite all he wrote, was NOT a sailor and by all accounts didn't know anything really about nautical-stuff (no more than any other Greek, that is to say). Journalists, academics, and directors all have in common that they get on through life through commentary- which has the same detachment as art. So it makes sense that ideologues would find themselves attracted to those fields, especially ideologues who's beliefs are at odds with empiricism.
Combine with that the very frank and open way in which Marx declares that his movement should proceed through people he agrees with gaining control over information and re-educating the masses, and you have a recipe for a majority that becomes a hegemony. We're in a state right now similar to what you've described- because of the peculiarities of Marxism, American progressives want to control what information people get and make sure that only their side of every issue gets presented- [i]for everybody's own good[/i]. A professor teaching Marxism doesn't fail to mention the Thousand Flowers Campaign [i]because he forgot.[/i]
Which is part of why I react to Lizbeth's ideas the way I do- that all her suggestions would cripple conservative politics and not really affect the progressives isn't a coincidence [i]either[/i]. It's just a facet of our lives that when a western progressive hears conservative ideas being expressed in a public situation, their gut response is "Somebody needs to do something about this". That's also why I was skeptical of mental health playing a greater role in presidential elections- the idea, as I said to Chakra, that one's biases can be given clinical terminology and made official is going to be very very appealing to some.
I agree with that. Of course, in practice, it's not that simple. If the majority seem to be against same sex marriage (or Issue X, because I refuse to discuss same sex marriage again until 2015), then the minority will say they are being manipulated in some way. That's classically how it's gone- when religious majority wants X, cultural Marxist's claim that they only want X because the wool has been pulled over their eyes by the Church, and so therefore that want is invalid, or in fact an expression of the wants of a minority of aristocrats. They would know- turning the people into poorly-informed mouthpieces for the ideology of a few is their [i]modus operandi[/i] and always has been.
Basically every liberal thinks this- you should add it to your list. Liberals are much more fixated on how to efficiently make their ideals reality, and find actual exploration of if their ideals are good or not tiresome. They present their progressive agenda, solicit response, and when the conservative critics appear, they say "Why does it have to be about right vs. left". It's all part of that desire to [i]appear[/i] open to a variety of viewpoints without actually doing any of the things that would entail that one sees so often. It also is a part of what Eric said- because the the progressive's message so completely permeates everything, when they are in the rare circumstance of having to see a conservative say something, they treat it as an exception to how the political/intellectual process should/does operate...because for them, it is. On the other hand, a conservative can't have any sort of political curiosity without being constantly bombarded by the opposition, so for us the 'Liberal vs Conservative' thing is completely inseperable from political conversation.
Ucci,
One is knowledge while the other one is mere information about the knowledge. Knowledge requires going through the process of experience in person for gathering the information.
Generally, people do not differenciate between the two and consider good orataion as the only benchmark of a knowledgeable person.
with love,
sanjay
Sure, because liberals don’t like facts. (I don’t actually believe this, but it’s my new thing to use the leftest political moves against them. Things like belittlement of a persons ideas, not through counter arguments, but by claiming they are bias sources, so don’t count.
Here I use the insult to ignore any counter argument… Though as you didn’t actually make a counter argument, I might be wasting my time.)
So?
The world is not class-less… But the US is the closest that has ever existed. That it still has some is relevant, but not as much as what has made it one of the first. The places that now are achieving it are doing so by mimicking the US at its beginnings.
I concur, except as noted.
The second parts are correct, but, Conservatives also see war as a last result. We just thinking that having the biggest stick is going to limit the amount of people that are willing to start one.
Here is weird, Yes, Liberals want education for all, but so do Conservatives. The difference comes down to how much FEDERAL influence is in education. The education system has only gotten worse from when Jimmy Carter federalized it. This is one of the issues that makes me a Conservative over a Libertarian, as Libertarians want all government involvement in education gone.
This does not apply to Universities though…
I largely concur
BS, complete an utter BS.
The free market by its very nature is the best source for change and new ideas. By holding down the free market, change and new ideas are necessarily held down as well. Hell, the entire Keynesian economic model works to hold still any changing factors, that is its goal.
Liberal are unable to deal with new ideas, holding that they already know all the information that is ever going to be needed and dismissing new information. It is why they remove peoples ability to decide for themselves, in the name of helping them. Liberals welcome change, to their already created ideas, ones that often go back to WWI and Pragmatism… And they have had little adjustment since that time. (now they feel sorry for the minorities instead of wanting to remove them and that is about it.) At this point, A liberal is a traditionalist to failed ideas, and that’s about it.
Conservatives are traditionalist when it comes to government influence in individuals lives, but it does so under the pretext of not fixing what is not broken. Waiting to have children until in a stable relationship, after college, is still the best way to be successful in life and to have successful children that follow the same path.
Now, I see this as largely just a human thing, if we believe we know what to do, we do it. I do not hold that against Liberals, up until they start pretending it is not true, but only for them. Then all I can see is the bullshit they spew.
Bonus
Oh, we met years ago, talked again just the other day with a Vicodin induced haze.
So?
You may not realize it, but you backed me up, you did not disprove me. Political print must be sought out, regardless of side. Conservative political thought is in a solid, this is political thought, sources. And there are contrasting Liberal parts that do this as well. These things must be sought out, looked up as Conservative (or Liberal) political thought. However, on a regular basis, liberal thoughts are part of slandered interaction media. People run into things, making fun of conservatives, promoting Liberals, only presenting one side, or presenting one side as fact and saying, “the conservative counter thought is…” And it is because the people are so enveloped in it they don’t even realize it.
An anecdotal story, I read stuff over at the cracked web sight, though that gets to be less and less. And I can show you multiple times where a casual insult at conservatives is thrown in, in articles that have nothing, NOTHING to do with politics. The writers are so casual in their hate towards conservatives they don’t even understand they are doing it. The readers get to imbibe it, and if they have never encountered a conservative thought, because as you said, it’s right there with the other political mags, they would have no reason to understand this hate is not the norm.
It gets worse, Recently a person wrote a blog, in the blog they listed a bunch of Communist points. Then claimed they where just standing up for social justice and where not communist at all. Then other people pulled out the Communist Russia “constitution” and 95% of the points the person made matched up. The envelopment is so bad they don’t even know they are making political points! They just know that they are good and those that disagree are evil. (I’ll have to look around for the blog, I can’t find it right now.)
The OP was for reforming democracy in the US. We are a two party system, because you must have 51% of the support to get elected. These are the divisions that have developed through time.
I wish that the entire ideas of socialism and communism would be seen for the bad policies they are, that humans are not capable of doing the things they wish with them. That that path leads to destruction and pain. Because then, it would come down to fighting between the Conservatives and the Libertarians, and we can focus on social issues that are more questionable over the economic ones that are less so.
I also wish I had the superpower of telekinesis… That’s a cool wish right.
Again, I did.
I’m not sure I understand what you’ve said, ucci. I said what I said because I’ve so often heard you tell people they’re wrong, albeit sometimes politely, and because you’ve so often insulted my intelligence. Trying to answer you is like trying to pull a wet sheet off my face only to have it return. After a while, it simply becomes tiresome. Nothing is accomplished; people repeat themselves; it’s a dead-end rather than a two-way discussion of very normal, rather mundane, differences.
I have a couple of very good friends, both conservatives. We’ve had years of discussion on-line. They’ve taught me a great deal about politics in general and the conservative political ideology in particular. We’ve had a great deal of fun over the years and I love them very much–they’re still conservative and I’m still liberal in some things and not so liberal in others.
I’m sorry the thread took this turn. 