Civil War in the Republican Party

[esco]

understood ... btw-why didn't you get involved in any of the past political threads before the new forum? seems like you are really into political discussions.

This is not at all what I'm doing. I hope this is as clear as day to everyone except you.

I asked about whether Bush's lack of fiscal discipline was of concern to true conservatives. I suggest it is.

Answering by saying "Kerry is a liberal" doesn't address my question.

If you asked someone in the gym what anabolic steroids they thought would comprise an effective bulking stack, and they started spouting out some irrelevant bullshit about how bee pollen mixed with st john's wort would put on some quality muscle...

I guarantee that you'd be irritated too.

I just want people to answer the friggin question and stop trying to reframe the question to fit their pre-packaged answer.

But you're right, I can't make anyway give me an honest, straightforward answer. However, I sure wish more people were willing to do this.

Get it?

 

[Kayz]

I responded to your questions as well.

 

[Millard]

Honestly? I am very passionate about political discussion but don't always have the time to partcipate. My political beliefs don't conveniently fall along party lines so I get challenged from both ends of the political spectrum. Imagine the time and effort needed to respond to challenges from both Democrats and Republicans. Also, there is the question of whether it is a good thing for the board to have an outspoken admin on topics not related to the main purpose of the site.

Why did I decide to participate at this particular point? There was some uncertainty about whether political discussion was allowed. I want to dispel the feeling that political discussion was banned or restricted. This is not the case.

I thought the best way to give a clear message on this was to participate myself. And show that passionate discussion, disagreement, debate was allowed and encouraged.

It doesn't have to be nice and feel-good debate as long as their is mutual respect among the participants. The board definitely does not need the type of discussion that ends in "you're a asshole", "you're a retard", etc.

At the same time I wanted to show that I respect the members who are sick and tired of politics.

By creating a new section dedicated to politics and participating in it myself, I hope to achieve these objectives.

 

[Millard]

Yes, you did. And I appreciate it.

 

[Kayz]

So in other words you are doing this for your own political gain on Meso????

J/K bro.

 

[Millard]

I'm the first to admit that I'm pretty extreme in my views...but they are my views. And for you to fucking imply that I'm not a good person because of my opinions is highly offensive. But, I dont' care what you think, so fuck it.

WTF, are you practicing your "spin" or what?

I added the following words to the discussion interspersed by your comments:

"This... [your coments] and this... [your comments] is why I think that this... [your comments] will not succeed and that the following will not happen..."

Nothing more, nothing less.

Why would you think I'm implying you are not a good person because of your opinions?

If anyone suggested or implied such a thing, it was your bud jbiggs, or your own words, not me.

 

[Millard]

In my best Al Gore voice: "I feel that he has attacked my integrity and my character....and I will not respond in kind".

I did nothing of the sort.

I just used your words to suggest that the Ayn Rand' virtue of selfishness and survival of the fittest philosophies that get strong play in Republian circles make it unlikely that the good-heartedness and generosity of the individual will be sufficient to take care of those less fortunate individuals (however you wish to define them).

The government does a horrible job with the impoverish families, etc. But I think it is pure fantasy to believe that the private sector will do any better. Historically, the voluntary good will and charity of individuals has failed miserably.

I don't have a solution, but neither is this a solution.

 

[Kayz]

No, you were using my previous statements to support your opinion that people will not donate to charity.....implying that I'm not a good person.

At least that is how I took it...and so did the others on this thread.

 

[Kayz]

I did nothing of the sort.

I just used your words to suggest that the Ayn Rand' virtue of selfishness and survival of the fittest philosophies that get strong play in Republian circles make it unlikely that the good-heartedness and generosity of the individual will be sufficient to take care of those less fortunate individuals (however you wish to define them).

The government does a horrible job with the impoverish families, etc. But I think it is pure fantasy to believe that the private sector will do any better. Historically, the voluntary good will and charity of individuals has failed miserably.

I don't have a solution, but neither is this a solution.

They have failed miserably because we are so fucking taxed to the gills there is nothing left to give at the end of the day....the government takes it all.

 

[esco]

very well said, totally agreewith you ... glad you did it and are partaking.

Honestly? I am very passionate about political discussion but don't always have the time to partcipate. My political beliefs don't conveniently fall along party lines so I get challenged from both ends of the political spectrum. Imagine the time and effort needed to respond to challenges from both Democrats and Republicans. Also, there is the question of whether it is a good thing for the board to have an outspoken admin on topics not related to the main purpose of the site.

Why did I decide to participate at this particular point? There was some uncertainty about whether political discussion was allowed. I want to dispel the feeling that political discussion was banned or restricted. This is not the case.

I thought the best way to give a clear message on this was to participate myself. And show that passionate discussion, disagreement, debate was allowed and encouraged.

It doesn't have to be nice and feel-good debate as long as their is mutual respect among the participants. The board definitely does not need the type of discussion that ends in "you're a asshole", "you're a retard", etc.

At the same time I wanted to show that I respect the members who are sick and tired of politics.

By creating a new section dedicated to politics and participating in it myself, I hope to achieve these objectives.

 

[Millard]

They have failed miserably because we are so fucking taxed to the gills there is nothing left to give at the end of the day....the government takes it all.

Well, if I weren't taxed at all, I most likely wouldn't give any more to charity. I'd use the money to better take care of my family. I suspect you would do the same? (I don't mean to be presumptious since I don't know you very well, so I'll leave this last statement as a question for you.)

I believe the majority of individuals would do the same.

 

[Millard]

No, you were using my previous statements to support your opinion that people will not donate to charity.....implying that I'm not a good person.

At least that is how I took it...and so did the others on this thread.

You have my apology then. As this was not my intention. For what it's worth, your honesty in this discussion gives you high marks in book.

 

[Kayz]

Well, if I weren't taxed at all, I most likely wouldn't give any more to charity. I'd use the money to better take care of my family. I suspect you would do the same? (I don't mean to be presumptious since I don't know you very well, so I'll leave this last statement as a question for you.)

I believe the majority of individuals would do the same.

Quite possibly, but the unfortunate and ill-equipped managed to do okay before all the social welfare programs and safety nets were in place...and this was due to the generosity of others who have the means to do so.

 

[Millard]

Damn...On my first or second post, I answered your exact question. Just because it wasn't the answer I guess I was suppose to give, doesn't mean I didn't answer it!

Neither you nor Kayz answered my question at first. I had to ask again and again. But ultimately you did to some extent.

I guess you're so accustomed to arguing with Democrats that you respond to any criticism of Bush by attacking Kerry.

I am not a Democrat so please don't waste your time doing this.

 

[Kayz]

You have my apology then. As this was not my intention. For what it's worth, your honesty in this discussion gives you high marks in book.

Thank you, I appreciate it. You have my respect as well as you believe what you say and you have convictions in your heart...that is admirable.

Wish I could say the same for Kerry.

 

[Kayz]

To be honest with you though, I don't think either Jbiggs nor myself have ever used the argument "kerry is a liberal" to score points in our little debates. Sure, we might say it, but we have offered plenty of substantiated data to support this claim.

We never just say "..yeah, but he's a liberal".

 

[jbiggs]

Neither you nor Kayz answered my question at first. I had to ask again and again. But ultimately you did to some extent.

I guess you're so accustomed to arguing with Democrats that you respond to any criticism of Bush by attacking Kerry.

I am not a Democrat so please don't waste your time doing this.

In my first post gave an article that just shows that both sides take issue with the canidates. No canidate usually can be exactly what you're looking for. We ultimately vote for the canidate that falls in line closer to our views.

In my second post, I stated...

Most conservatives will agree W hasn't been as fiscally responsible as we would like or as tough on borders as we would like, but compared to Kerry's record, W is so much more the conservative than Kerry. No true conservatives will be casting a vote for Kerry. Some Libertarians probably will but no true conservatives. There is more to being conservative than fiscal restraint. Conservative values play a huge role as well and in that area Kerry is sunk.

I certainly wouldn't call this ducking your question...

I'm glad you have conviction for your points of view. I would rather have someone vote with conviction, even if it is the opposite way I would vote, than just vote because they had listened to someone without checking into what was said.

 

[Millard]

I'm glad you have conviction for your points of view. I would rather have someone vote with conviction, even if it is the opposite way I would vote, than just vote because they had listened to someone without checking into what was said.

Well, thanks

 

[Millard]

No true conservatives will be casting a vote for Kerry. Some Libertarians probably will but no true conservatives.

I want to revisit that above statement that you made earlier. But I will start another thread for this purpose.

One question here for you - you don't think Libertarians are 'true conservatives"?

 

[jbiggs]

I want to revisit that above statement that you made earlier. But I will start another thread for this purpose.

One question here for you - you don't think Libertarians are 'true conservatives"?

I think they are generally fiscally Conservative, believe in a strong military, but are socially Liberal.