Author Topic: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism  (Read 45012 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #195 on: January 10, 2010, 01:45:22 AM »
Perhaps the debate should not be about the ends but the dogmatic emphasis on the means to that end.

Let's say the goal is national health care. A partisan might be dogmatic about funding the program with a surtax on the rich, the other end might say do all in their power to kill the program demonizing anything that might change the status quo and protect those who might profit from keeping things the way they are.

A moderate might say if we must have National Health Care then fund it universally via sales tax so that everybody pays.

Nation Health Care means the provision of health services universally and NOT the insurance coverage package that is currently being debated.

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #196 on: January 10, 2010, 02:37:39 AM »
Perhaps the debate should not be about the ends but the dogmatic emphasis on the means to that end.

Let's say the goal is national health care. A partisan might be dogmatic about funding the program with a surtax on the rich, the other end might say do all in their power to kill the program demonizing anything that might change the status quo and protect those who might profit from keeping things the way they are.

A moderate might say if we must have National Health Care then fund it universally via sales tax so that everybody pays.

Nation Health Care means the provision of health services universally and NOT the insurance coverage package that is currently being debated.



That's an interesting take, BT, and a pretty good example.
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #197 on: January 10, 2010, 05:21:22 AM »
Bullshit. A moderate has no convictions. He's luke warm. Unwilling to take a stand.

Weak.

Ridiculous.  A partisan is someone who cannot think beyond the strict bigotry of his mindset.  The reason partisans call moderates weak is because partisans are incapable of processing more than one aspect of an issue. 

I know you have heard this one before.


Where are the statues of the great Moderates?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #198 on: January 10, 2010, 05:34:25 AM »
Quote
Where are the statues of the great Moderates?

Where would you place JFK on the spectrum, or Truman or Eisenhower or GHWBush?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27077
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #199 on: January 11, 2010, 02:27:10 AM »
Sorry ami (& Pooch), gotta shoot that one down.  A moderate, will frequently "moderate" their positons in order to seek compromise (& harmony   ;)  ).  Hardly the 'stand" you would be referring to.  The "stand" comes into play when the decision they finally come to, happens to be different than the other party was hopeful or wanting to see.  Partisans come to their decisions based on their core principals, and will largely stick to those principals, and screw what the party says.  Hardly the notion that they're simply sheep being led

There is no sin or weakness in compromise.  

Never said there was.  Even provided some examples of such while still maintaining some assemblence of conservative convictions


In fact, it is usually preferable to strict partisanship. 

There, I would disagree.  Then again, that's why I'm a proud partisan conservative, and allow nothing but MY OWN Princpals, help me make decisions....note, not someone else, but me


"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Rich

  • Guest
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #200 on: January 11, 2010, 01:15:21 PM »
>>A moderate is someone who has a differing opinion from the partisan view.<<

I don't think so. A moderate is someone who is unwilling or unable to form an opinion on his/her own. His only conviction is to not be convicted. So the moderates waits for a concensus and then follows the popular view.


>>A partisan, by definition, is someone who follows the party line, ie, allows someone else to form their opinion.<<

No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #201 on: January 11, 2010, 01:42:53 PM »
I don't think so. A moderate is someone who is unwilling or unable to form an opinion on his/her own. His only conviction is to not be convicted. So the moderates waits for a concensus and then follows the popular view.

You seem to be confusing "moderate" with "undecided". I suggest you learn English.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #202 on: January 11, 2010, 01:47:03 PM »
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.

A partisan, by definition (see below), follows a party line (usually decided by others, unless the person is a high level party member making party decisions). If the person does not follow a party line, he is not "partisan". This is standard English. Of course, you are free to make up your own definitions for words, but then you should expect to continue to not make sense with those that use standard definitions.

Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Partisan
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11036
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #203 on: January 11, 2010, 05:44:34 PM »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27077
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #204 on: January 12, 2010, 12:02:10 AM »
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.

A partisan, by definition (see below), follows a party line (usually decided by others, unless the person is a high level party member making party decisions). If the person does not follow a party line, he is not "partisan". This is standard English. Of course, you are free to make up your own definitions for words, but then you should expect to continue to not make sense with those that use standard definitions.

Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

Wow...what have I been all these years then  I don't tow any party line, I don't say how hi anytime the GOP says jump, I make up my own mind on issues.  Compromise on issues, while still trying to stay firm on core principals.  Hmmmmmm     ???
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #205 on: January 12, 2010, 12:22:00 AM »
Wow...what have I been all these years then  I don't tow any party line, I don't say how hi anytime the GOP says jump, I make up my own mind on issues.  Compromise on issues, while still trying to stay firm on core principals.  Hmmmmmm     ???

Moderate or independent.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27077
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #206 on: January 12, 2010, 12:41:53 AM »
DEFINATELY, not a moderate.  I guess that makes me an Independent
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #207 on: January 12, 2010, 03:00:38 AM »
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.

A partisan, by definition (see below), follows a party line (usually decided by others, unless the person is a high level party member making party decisions). If the person does not follow a party line, he is not "partisan". This is standard English. Of course, you are free to make up your own definitions for words, but then you should expect to continue to not make sense with those that use standard definitions.

Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

Wow...what have I been all these years then  I don't tow any party line, I don't say how hi anytime the GOP says jump, I make up my own mind on issues.  Compromise on issues, while still trying to stay firm on core principals.  Hmmmmmm     ???

The definitions that you and Rich keep giving have two fatal flaws:  The first is that a partisan comes to some sort of conclusion and then sticks with it.  In itself, that is a perfectly fine statement.  But then you contrast that with a moderate who, apparently, DOESN'T come to a conclusion.  That's ridiculous.  A conservative comes to the conclusion that prayer should be allowed in school.  A liberal comes to the conclusion that prayer should be prohibited in school.  A moderate may decide that a compromise can be made by allowing a moment of silence wherein a student may chose to pray silently or not at all.  By your definition, the conservative and liberal are making up their own minds and the moderate is allowing someone else to make up his mind for him.  Who?  Why cant a person of reasonable intelligence decide that both sides are being bigotted and a rational middle ground may be formed?   A conservative decides that gay unions of any kinds should be abolioshed because God hates them.  A liberal decides that God doesn't exist or absolutely loves gays as they are and insists gays have a right to marriage like any other couple.  A moderate may decide that, while his religious convictions or traditional views frown on homosexuality, his beliefs about freedom make individual rights ring true to him.  So he decides that a civil union best resolves the conflict.  Who made up his mind for him? 

The second fatal flaw is that idea that "I made up my mind and a lot of people just happen to agree with me."  This contrasts with "I considered the issue from both sides decided that there are solutions that can effectively serve both sides."  You view the first stance - the one that follows the party line - with "making up your own mind" but the second, free from the narrow constraints of either end of the spectrum, as somehow giving your free will to someone else.  WHO?  I favor civil unions and oppose gay marriage.  Who made up my mind for me?  The liberals?  Hell, no.  They want full gay marriage.  The conservatives?  Not a chance, they want homosexuality to get no recognition at all.

I do not mean to say that a person cannot make a full-blown partisan decision by intelligent reasoning and independent thought.  But that same process can be used by partisans from the other side of the aisle who come to completely opposite conclusions based on the same set of facts.  A moderate can equally view those facts and come up with a third solution- or he may choose one side or the other on any given issue.  Being free from partisan obligations he can vote for either side of an issue, or work towards compromise on any issue, wiothout having to answer to some party chairman or political group.

Partisanship is based on the simplistic ideal that everything is black or white and there is no middle ground - and the even more foolish idea that anyone who can see more than two possible solutions for a problem is "unwilling to take a stand."  It is the epitome of intellectual laziness - not to mention arrogance. 
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27077
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism
« Reply #209 on: January 12, 2010, 05:13:58 AM »
No. A "partisan" has reached a concensus on his/her own. It may be the same as others, but it was not reached because the opinion is popular. It is reached because the "partisan" believes it to be correct and is in tune with his/her core beliefs.

A partisan, by definition (see below), follows a party line (usually decided by others, unless the person is a high level party member making party decisions). If the person does not follow a party line, he is not "partisan". This is standard English. Of course, you are free to make up your own definitions for words, but then you should expect to continue to not make sense with those that use standard definitions.

Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance


Wow...what have I been all these years then  I don't tow any party line, I don't say how hi anytime the GOP says jump, I make up my own mind on issues.  Compromise on issues, while still trying to stay firm on core principals.  Hmmmmmm     ???

The definitions that you and Rich keep giving have two fatal flaws:  The first is that a partisan comes to some sort of conclusion and then sticks with it.  In itself, that is a perfectly fine statement.  But then you contrast that with a moderate who, apparently, DOESN'T come to a conclusion.  That's ridiculous.

Because you're not allowing for the aspects of what brought that moderate to their final decision....one not of ideological conviction but frequently of appeasement.  One not of a foundation of what they believe in, but a foundation of seeking compromise.  See the difference?


The second fatal flaw is that idea that "I made up my mind and a lot of people just happen to agree with me."  This contrasts with "I considered the issue from both sides decided that there are solutions that can effectively serve both sides."  You view the first stance - the one that follows the party line - with "making up your own mind" but the second, free from the narrow constraints of either end of the spectrum, as somehow giving your free will to someone else.  WHO?  I favor civil unions and oppose gay marriage.  Who made up my mind for me?  The liberals?  Hell, no.  They want full gay marriage.  The conservatives?  Not a chance, they want homosexuality to get no recognition at all.

As I said already, I'm a proud PARTISAN Conservative, but willing to recognize civil unions.  See?, a Partisan CAN compromise, and still hold hard to their ideologcal faith.  Wow, who'd a thunk it    8)



"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle