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.
heartland where people work for a living off the land,
You have apparently never lived in a farm state if you don't recognize the code word "heartland". I don't know how many times in the seven years I lived in an agricultural area of Illinois that I heard it referred to as "the heartland of America". I have also seen that term applied to Nebraska, where my spouse is from. What else is "working for a living off the land" if not farming? Hunting? Trapping? Logging? Fishing? Maybe, but certainly not teaching school in a farm community, working in a factory in an ag county, etc.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,527,286 times
Reputation: 2038
I don't think they hate the US, but they (the far right) are like an abuser who beats up his wife every other day, but yet says "Of course I love her".
The right is much more destructive to this country than the left because the right is exclusive. It is not into unification or consolidation. It wants separation. It sees other Americans as the enemies. The left sees concepts as the enemies, not people. It sees the divisiveness of the right and wants it excised because of the cancer it can cause. The right steadfastly refuses to see that its actions and beliefs are ultimately SELF-destructive. The right blames and blames and its solutions are not solutions, they are one-sided, my-way-or-the-highway impositions that undermine the whole concept of our country.
The right refuses to accept change. It cannot assimilate the idea into their world view. Things must go back to the way they were or there's no other way. How irrational! Instead of disempowering themselves by insisting on rigidity, they would be so much more successful if they learned to compromise. Many on the left do actually agree that certain things are worth preserving: small town America, family farms, plentiful resources, families (of all stripes and persuasions) who love each other, etc. But the key to this continuity is the acceptance that things change. It's the only absolute that's out there.
So either the right stands up and works with the left to forge a united, ever-evolving future OR we will all fight each other and destroy everything we love in the process.
The right has the ball. Are they going to use a glove and toss it back or are they going to come at everyone else with their bats?
How is Barry "uniting" this country?
Things change. Why, yes they do. Things changed in Germany during the 20's & 30's. And the people kind of united behind their leader. Do you think that was good?
Things changed in the Soviet Union from the days of the Czar. About 100 million were murdered. That was change. Was it good?
Barry's Hope 'n Change mantra is silly and appeals to the emotions. I don't like the change he is selling. So, guess I'll keep the ball for now.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,455,696 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Anymore I look at contemporary politics between left and right and I see two groups fighting over who was worse, Hitler or Pol Pot, never stopping to think they were both blood thirsty psychopathic animals. To side with one because it killed 1 less person than the other guy hardly makes it right.
Agreed that extremist liberals can be just as overbearing or self-serving as extremist 'wingers (the excesses of "political correctness" quickly come to mind). And if you're advocating a more "integral" approach that's free of ideology, that's certainly admirable. But "padcrasher" has a point if you're simply insisting on "knee-jerk moderation" or that "they're all the same" (sorry, but they're not).
For example, supporting Miss California's right to her, um, "opinion", is all well and good. But is it really so "intolerant" or "hypocritical" for liberals (or anyone) to disagree with her? And would her opinions be as defensible if she had openly advocated for the KKK?
I think contemporary philosopher Ken Wilber speaks to this issue a bit here:
"The upside of pluralism is this: by making everything equal it is the consciousness substrate upon which, in general, sit the equal rights movement, racial equality, the environmental movement and multicultural sensitivity. But everything being equal is also its downside: it has a very hard time saying what is right and wrong. If everything is equal, then our values must be flat, with no depth, no greater or lesser significance, and no ethical framework upon which to hang our society's best intentions. This in turn has abolished the presence of a positive landscape of civil action because we no longer accept that there are better and worse versions of ethical conduct. Instead, we leave it to the courts, and the decisions of juries ..."
I don't think they hate the US, but they (the far right) are like an abuser who beats up his wife every other day, but yet says "Of course I love her".
That is what I think of the liberals. They say they love the country but at the same time they have no problem with ignoring the constitution and welcoming more socialism into the country. Republicans seem to be Democrat light when it comes to the same thing. Both parties have torn this country apart and continue to do so and have no care in the world about what they do.
BTW, Obama has not, and never intended to, unite the country. But then, anyone who is a member of one of the twp political parties wants to unite the country because they like the arguing and crap they cause.
What % of the population do you think is engaged in mining, or drilling for oil? Probably less than work in agriculture, excpet maybe in Wyoming. Farming and ranching are the same thing on a different scale. Raising animals is agriculture. Landscaping is not a rural occupation; it is an urban/suburban job. Windfarming is not making a living off the land, in my opoinon, any more than working at any other power plant is.
Why are those occupations any more honorable than nurising, or designing telephones? (Mine and DH's)
Agreed that extremist liberals can be just as overbearing or self-serving as extremist 'wingers (the excesses of "political correctness" quickly come to mind). And if you're advocating a more "integral" approach that's free of ideology, that's certainly admirable. But "padcrasher" has a point 0
For example, supporting Miss California's right to her, um, "opinion", is all well and good. But is it really so "intolerant" or "hypocritical" for liberals (or anyone) to disagree with her? And would her opinions be as defensible if she had openly advocated for the KKK?
I think contemporary philosopher Ken Wilber speaks to this issue a bit here:
"The upside of pluralism is this: by making everything equal it is the consciousness substrate upon which, in general, sit the equal rights movement, racial equality, the environmental movement and multicultural sensitivity. But everything being equal is also its downside: it has a very hard time saying what is right and wrong. If everything is equal, then our values must be flat, with no depth, no greater or lesser significance, and no ethical framework upon which to hang our society's best intentions. This in turn has abolished the presence of a positive landscape of civil action because we no longer accept that there are better and worse versions of ethical conduct. Instead, we leave it to the courts, and the decisions of juries ..."
I will be the last person promoting any form of egalitarianism or suggesting that pluralism or even individualism holds some mystic key or superior position.
For instance, I may have strong tendencies to be anti-war, supporting of the second amendment, advocate for more efficient government (which I believe is easier to achieve if it is smaller) I may be personally pro-life yet support the right of women to make that choice for themselves. I may believe that there are things in which government can do better than individuals, such as health care.
Now using this hypothetical examples, I will advocate on behalf of these ideals and if I were a member of a political party, some of these ideal may come into conflict with the party line. So for myself, I think it is best to promote ones personal beliefs instead of party politics as all too often party politics paint people into defined and neat little boxes. In doing so they remove the necessity for individuals to weigh each issues merits on its face and instead adopt a talking point. By removing the thinking, you encourage obedience to someone who has thought for you and decided what you should think. I refuse to be a part of that kind of thing and would prefer to be wrong 1000 times on my own accord than to be right once because of something I repeated that someone else said.
I can also accept that some people will hold beliefs that are in fact the party line, today. However the party lines changes and when people so readily change their beliefs, I must question is it out of new found wisdom or simply the comfort of conforming to a group they are comfortable with.
Agreed that extremist liberals can be just as overbearing or self-serving as extremist 'wingers (the excesses of "political correctness" quickly come to mind). And if you're advocating a more "integral" approach that's free of ideology, that's certainly admirable. But "padcrasher" has a point if you're simply insisting on "knee-jerk moderation" or that "they're all the same" (sorry, but they're not).
For example, supporting Miss California's right to her, um, "opinion", is all well and good. But is it really so "intolerant" or "hypocritical" for liberals (or anyone) to disagree with her? And would her opinions be as defensible if she had openly advocated for the KKK?
I think contemporary philosopher Ken Wilber speaks to this issue a bit here:
"The upside of pluralism is this: by making everything equal it is the consciousness substrate upon which, in general, sit the equal rights movement, racial equality, the environmental movement and multicultural sensitivity. But everything being equal is also its downside: it has a very hard time saying what is right and wrong. If everything is equal, then our values must be flat, with no depth, no greater or lesser significance, and no ethical framework upon which to hang our society's best intentions. This in turn has abolished the presence of a positive landscape of civil action because we no longer accept that there are better and worse versions of ethical conduct. Instead, we leave it to the courts, and the decisions of juries ..."
That you jump from discussing an opinion supporting marriage, as it has been practiced in every civilized society to an opinion supporting the KKK is very telling. Your life must be quite confused.
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.
