Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The blacks in the 60's were fighting to right a wrong... but the left is not about "rights" any more. They are about power and control even more so than the right is... and that is alot
Harborlady has a point, the radical factions of BOTH parties are the problem. You taking a side and trying to rationalize one extremist while vilifying the other does not help
An educated society is not so easily fooled by pretenders and slick oratory. Extremists appeal to those on either side who are unable to think for themselves and vote with their emotions rather than with their heads.
Can you label extremists by looking at them now? They wear a brand?
Doesn't really matter anyways, people tolerate extremists if they point the same way on issues. Just look at Ann Coulter, embraced by conservatives even though she wishes to invade the middle east, kill all the leaders, and convert all the heathens to Christianity.
This is precisely what I mean to address. Debating issues shouldn't be reduced a popularity contest. Ideas should stand on merits alone. We've reduced the halls of congress to circus like atmosphere, no work can be accomplished on any front due to the tactics overriding good faith negotiations.
Extremists can be identified by their motive to steer, the intention to dominate, the Machiavellian way VS the process our founders established. They do not mean to be Americans, nor do they uphold the American way, nor do they mean to serve in the greater interest of we the people.
Individual citizens involved in sub category groups are wise to rebuke their own when misrepresentation occurs. I, for instance, as religious am obliged to renounce the behavior of violent religious, because that behavior is not in service to their maker. When wrongs are done in my name, I will voice my opposition loudly and focus on the behavior.
The OP seems to think that anyone who does not think like him should be eliminated or culled. Its likely that many will think he is a extremist for just expressing this view.
An educated society is not so easily fooled by pretenders and slick oratory. Extremists appeal to those on either side who are unable to think for themselves and vote with their emotions rather than with their heads.
The same way poverty exists, ignorance will always exist, so eradication as a goal isn't possible to deliver. The problem as I see it is when the tactics these extremists use serve to generate poverty and ignorance. The productive efforts of sincere good faith negotiations attempting to mitigate are being run roughshod regularly.
When we have a landscape rife with this behavior, when libel is permitted to run unabated, discerning truth from lies becomes a herculean feat even for the most educated. The most educated need to commit themselves to preserving a landscape where truth can prevail, even unpleasant truths. Even truths that run contrary to everything I've learned my whole lifetime.
MODERATES... at what point is it appropriate to declare open season on extremists?
What if it is an extremist moderate?
Humor aside, the definition of what it is to be a Neoconservative is rather elusive and much like applying the broad stroke of "Democrat or Republican" to attempt to describe liberals or conservatives.
I would assert that there are at least two variants of Neoconservatism, the first being more along the original ideologies of Plato, with far more focus on intellectualism than the group that followed. The second wave of Neoconservatism, or the William Kristol's and Dick Cheney's of the world seem to have adopted only portions of their former practitioners ideologies and merged them with a more militant and authoritarian flair. Like combining the DNA of a Liberal and progressive "spreading of Democracy is good" case of foreign policy with, the rights symbiosis with the military and you end up with "spreading democracy at gun point, for those who know not what they do" (in the most elitist of fashions, mind you.)
I know it seems like semantics but perhaps you could offer an example of what you consider extremist and I'll compare it to mine.
Don't you realize how extreme your view is? The left fights for rights, the right fights for control. Of course there would be a difference in their strategies. Your use of the word hate is truly baffling, a catchword for something you cannot grasp. Were the blacks who protested in the 50s and 60s full of hate? This thread talks about culling the herd, of eliminating the extremes. Clearly your very lopsided viewpoint puts you in danger.
Clearly you are confused. We are losing our rights because of the left who wants to control even our very thoughts The left fights for the right to force people to think like them, collective thought.
The OP seems to think that anyone who does not think like him should be eliminated or culled. Its likely that many will think he is a extremist for just expressing this view.
cull (kl)
tr.v. culled, cull·ing, culls
1. To pick out from others; select.
2. To gather; collect.
3. To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).
n.
Something picked out from others, especially something rejected because of inferior quality.
It's not the elimination of species I suggest. It's the reinstatement of moral hazard in speech. Libelous speech is not an entitlement. Conspiring to tamper with evidence is not an entitlement.
MODERATES... at what point is it appropriate to declare open season on extremists?
What if it is an extremist moderate?
Humor aside, the definition of what it is to be a Neoconservative is rather elusive and much like applying the broad stroke of "Democrat or Republican" to attempt to describe liberals or conservatives.
I would assert that there are at least two variants of Neoconservatism, the first being more along the original ideologies of Plato, with far more focus on intellectualism than the group that followed. The second wave of Neoconservatism, or the William Kristol's and Dick Cheney's of the world seem to have adopted only portions of their former practitioners ideologies and merged them with a more militant and authoritarian flair. Like combining the DNA of a Liberal and progressive "spreading of Democracy is good" case of foreign policy with, the rights symbiosis with the military and you end up with "spreading democracy at gun point, for those who know not what they do" (in the most elitist of fashions, mind you.)
I know it seems like semantics but perhaps you could offer an example of what you consider extremist and I'll compare it to mine.
We've already shared a conclusion in previous thread long ago-- these poli party labels are essentially meaningless when they fail to represent what they say they are. I name this chapter of American history an era of political identity crisis.
Partisanship is extremist. The definition of extremist is not attached to ideology labels, but a set of behaviors/ tactics people resort. Ideology orange or Ideology purple... it doesn't matter.
My OP is asking moderates at the mercy of warring factions at what point do drastic actions need to be implemented to restore orderly debate. Drastic actions defined as radical policy changes geared toward responsible speech and conduct.
We've already shared a conclusion in previous thread long ago-- these poli party labels are essentially meaningless when they fail to represent what they say they are. I name this chapter of American history an era of political identity crisis.
Partisanship is extremist. The definition of extremist is not attached to ideology labels, but a set of behaviors/ tactics people resort. Ideology orange or Ideology purple... it doesn't matter.
My OP is asking moderates at the mercy of warring factions at what point do drastic actions need to be implemented to restore orderly debate. Drastic actions defined as radical policy changes geared toward responsible speech and conduct.
I recall that discussion was a good one too.
Tough call, as trying to legislate responsibility is something that I generally rail against. Teach responsibility is one thing, legislating it removes the required effort to think about ones actions and only be obedient to a law without pause. As Tacitus once said, "The more numerous the laws of state, the more corrupt the state", and I agree.
While America is currently bitterly partisan, I find it rather homogeneous in over all view. Take for example two political figures, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, both who are to the far ends of Liberalism and Conservatism in the traditional sense. Yet today, people would call Obama who I think it could be shown is quite moderate, to be some kind of extremist liberal socialist. With the views of the bulk of America being a matter of a few degrees left and right.
How would one restore healthy debate and dispense with emotionally driven rhetoric which embraces rationalizations at the expense of principle, time and education. We did not get this way over night, nor would we be able to reach a higher level of civility over night.
As to turning to legislation to mend the current state of dialog, I would be willing to bet it would only inflame the situation more than it would repair it.
One place where I could see where legislation might do justice is in contemporary media outlets that in order to be considered or listed as a "news agency", they would have to openly and plainly disclose what is opinion and what is actually just news. The modern day church is cable news in the sense that this is where people turn to in order to get information about the topics of the day and when those sources of information are the ones who are fueling the fires of emotionally charged stupidity, then as Joseph Pulitzer once pointed out, "A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself."
I am being serious when I ask this. What are the guiding principles of moderates?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The left fights for the right to force people to think like them, collective thought.
