As you did when you stated, "No, it makes him a Republican," and went on to talk about "liberal agendas". Your terminology masks the the issues on the table by painting them over with a broad brush. The use of divisive terminology, such as you have demonstrated, precludes rational discussion of the issue. Ideology steps to the front and batters down anything that looks like independent thought. Adjectives are great and necessary. I look out my window and see a sunny day, colorful leaves on the trees, and having been outside already, I know that a brisk and chilly wind is blowing. Republican, Liberal, Jew, Commie, Socialist, Zionist and such are hardly to be considered adjectives. Try again....
Obama's Gallup numbers have been moving in a very positive direction the past few days. He's now at +17 ... 55% positive and 38% negative. http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx
So I write Republican, or Liberal Agenda, and you derive positive or negative connotation painted with a broad brush? How does the word "Hamburger" effect you? Do you get itchy when I mention the color Red? Why is it I suspect you feel oppressed when you see Christmas trees.... I don't even want to think about about how my fantasy with Nancy Pelosi in a zipper mask might effect you....
When you use nouns as adjectives you are labeling, and your tone clearly communicates judgements of value. That creates divisiveness and hostility. Although in this case the hostility appears to be a fundamental trait of your character. Is that the result of nature or nurture?
Same here. If I disagree with a liberal, I am automatically labeled a conservative, and if I disagree with a conservative, I am labeled a liberal. I become worried about people that, after branding themselves as "liberal" or 'conservative", mindlessly adopt the alleged principles of their chosen political system without thinking about it. Years ago, I used to think of myself as liberal, but today, I see people adopting that ideology as a marketing ploy. People like Al Gore and Michael Moore have pulled in millions of dollars by "shearing the sheep" with their hypocrisy. In my opinion, the problem with today's liberalism is that hypocrisy and hatred run through it like a lethal cancer. And I think that true conservationism in government died a very long time ago, because conservative principles prevent people in government from obtaining for themselves personal power and immense wealth. The system is set up so that no one can shrink government without being run out of Washington. There was a guest on The Daily Show that explained practical liberalism and conservationism perfectly: Liberals want equality for all and are willing to sacrifice people's freedom; Conservatives want freedom for all and are willing to sacrifice people's equality. As a Moderate, I believe that freedom and equality can be balanced against each other, as long as we stick to the principles of the Founding Fathers which is that the people are more powerful than the government. I think that the insurance industry needs regulation, too, and I believe that regulation and control are two different things. But I also strongly believe in malpractice tort reform along the lines of what they have in Australia. You never see Fox News bashing Australia's health care system because 1) Australia's socialized medicine is successful, and 2) malpractice lawsuits are limited.
Don't forget the other side of that, which is that government exists to protect the rights of the people.
YES! Or, as it was once explained to me, 1. A pure Democracy grants and revokes the rights of the people. 2. A pure Republic protects the rights of the people. 3. The ultimate symbol of a pure Democracy is a lynch mob. Democracy is a blueprint for a government, NOT a form of government.
The founding fathers put a great deal of thought into protecting the minority from the excesses of the majority. I find that oftentimes the neo-conservative movement forgets this fact. Any number of individual rights issues can be cast in moral terms. (Perhaps the Christian Conservatives are most guilty of this.) If they mobilize a majority to pass new legislation which is later overturned by a court (remember, one role of government is to protect the rights of the people) then we hear all about activist judges who are creating law. Of course, were the will of the majority to remove the religious status of certain evangelical groups, and it got passed into law, I would expect those same Christian Conservatives to expect the courts to provide "equal protection". Just one of many points of hypocracy that bother me in today's society...
I have the book "Plain, Honest Men - The Making of the American Constitution". I've been meaning to read it. It goes into the decision-making process of the men that made the United States' form of government. I agree. I'll take it one step further - I sometimes think that any political movement that assigns themselves a label - liberal, conservative, progressive, etc - forgets that our laws apply to us all and usually are promoting selective enforcement. Well, I always thought that activist judges are those that CREATE a new law. Our laws are made by 500-or-so federal or state ELECTED representatives - that's a Republic. Laws are NOT be be made by one or five or nine UNELECTED judges - that's an aristocracy. Actually, a strict interpretation of the First Amendment is that the government can't influence religion, but religion can influence government. It's based on the premise that without religion, there is no group morality.
Like Bubba Clinton, you seem to think arguing over what the meaning of "Is" is will further your argument. I'll indulge. lib⋅er⋅al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA –adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. re⋅pub⋅li⋅can   /rɪˈpʌblɪkən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-puhb-li-kuhn] Show IPA –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a republic. 2. favoring a republic. 3. fitting or appropriate for the citizen of a republic: a very republican notion. 4. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Republican party. con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive   /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA –adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. pro⋅gres⋅sive   /prəˈgrɛsɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA –adjective 1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor. You might note that all of the above words are listed as adjectives. Moving beyond the basic grammar lesson, I can understand and even sympathize with your desire for a less partisan society. Trying to remove the "labels" from our speech for fear of negative connotations is just, well, stupid. Its actually more ridiculous than removing Christmas trees from government property for fear of offending non-Christians. The negative connotations you assign to those words come from a variety of locations, including the media(both right and left), and our dear leader. I'm somewhat gratified I didn't log on to respond sooner, or I would have missed your last post which included the words "neo-conservative" and "Christian Conservatives", both presented in a negative light. (Ironically, you referred to THEM as hypocritical) Another judgment on your part? You are just full of irony.
"It makes him a republican..." pronoun->verb->pronoun->article->noun This, of course, assumes that I remember my grammar from grade school. Where is the adjective in that sentence? Why, there isn't one. "An indefinite article (English a, an) is used before singular nouns that refer to any member of a group. " Ah yes, a label, as I originally pointed out. Labels are counterproductive. Give it up.
Soooo funny. Now you are going to cherry pick a sentence from one of my posts, and say "That is the sentence you were referring to when you said adjectives are necessary". It emphasizes the weakness of your entire argument. Stepping away, once again from this diversion, and going right back to the original post, you asked if Mia wanting regulation on the insurance industry made him liberal or socialist. Knowing that most of Mia's posts are conservative in nature, and acknowledging he is for some regulation of the insurance industry, makes him more Republican than anything else. I went on to further point out that the loudest ones howling for complete deregulation are the Libertarians. There were no negative or positive connotations(other than the ones you imagined), and certainly no judgment. It was a simple statement of opinion, based on the evidence at hand. Given all that, I think its the link I provided, and my "Rah Rah" attitude, encouraging the President pushing a "liberal agenda" that got your panties in a twist. So let me ask you. Do you believe people should no longer express their opinions for fear they might be in conflict with someone else opinion? Is the expression of opinion "not productive"? I think perhaps the only thing that scares me more than the purposeful ruination of the US economy by its leadership, is leadership that buys into the idea that we can legislate homogeneous thought. Hitler certainly believed it.
I think that respectful dialogue is a great way to expand one's mind. It would appear that respectful dialogue is something beyond your current capabilities. Your hostility is palpable - an observation that goes right along with your use of unproductive and divisive labeling. For what its worth, generalizing to absurdity is a poor rhetorical tactic.
/Agree That is why I don't load my dialogue with statements like that. It is analogous to saying, "You shouldn't call people names, a**hole." I'll grant you that as well, but lets be honest. Your initial response about labeling being divisive and "not productive" was where the hostility in this conversation started. Asking people not to use the words "Republican", "Liberal", "Progressive", "Conservative", "Libertarian", "Socialist", "Communist", or any other word in application to a policy, an agenda, is asking people to generalize to the absurd, as they will lack the descriptive language to communicate clearly with people. Perhaps it is absurd to generalize and say that such requests for changes to our language can manipulate behavior, but one of the greatest political chess players of our time, and master of using language to move opinion completely disagrees with you. Phrases like "Man Made Disaster", "overseas contingency operation", "not helpful", and "not productive" are a small part of a changed set of language that allows this man to move polls 4-5 points with a single speech. Please forgive me if I accept his opinion on the subject over yours. More irony. Keep it coming
Yeah, well somewhere right after that post was made I got one of those anonymous thumb downs that seem to pop up in these forums from time to time. A nice reflection on the caliber of people we are dealing with - especially when it is on a totally unrealted post in a totally unrelated forum with cryptic (if insulting) feedback accompanying it - "Nice looking gravel" Small egos are easily bruised I suppose...
I'm extremely disappointed by this: Obama is back down to 50% again... and with the very quick fall down to 50%, I think there's a good chance he'll finally fall below 50% tomorrow. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx It's so sad to me to think that people are falling for the Republican lies yet again... We let the Republicans completely destroy the country and now folks are thinking it's a good idea to let these people back in power? People don't have much of a memory I guess. The Democrats have to do a better job of framing the debate. George W. Bush & the Republicans have come close to destroying this country, Barack Obama & the Democrats are doing everything they can to save it.
Get over it crybaby. Talking about rep usually means you're going to get more negative rep. It's childish to even bring it up. Back on topic, it looks like only 28% of likely voters strongly approve of Obama. Wow... That's really impressive. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Speaking of hostile and divisive labeling that interferes with open discussion... Now, what was I said, oh yeah - "It would appear that respectful dialogue is something beyond your current capabilities. Your hostility is palpable - an observation that goes right along with your use of unproductive and divisive labeling." Thanks Mia. I think you have helped clarify my fan base again. Another badge of honor.
Unfortunately, and it does sadden me, to date Obama has only proven himself to be a mediocre President. He is not an LBJ or Roosevelt. He is far too aloof and insulated - some would describe it as arrogant, although I am not sure that is the root of the issue. LBJ or Roosevelt would have been working the aisles of Congress to get his agenda passed, using any tactic they could - calling in favors, passing out gifts, threatening to out people, etc. Obama appears to sit in his office and wait for others to work things out. No risk, no gain. Public opinion is tilting not because of what others are doing, but because of what Obama is not doing. Again, it saddens me...