"Freedom" thread or something

Epignosis wrote: Atavachron wrote: Well the personal economic comparison is a bit vague in this context, but that aside; you seem to be saying you don't like the fact that voters are divided so clearly by party lines and at the same time you don't like it when voters are less political and more practical.  Which is it? No need to construct a dilemma when there isn't one. What is practical depends solely on what the ends are.  To a liberal, what I propose will always be seen as impractical, will it not?  It's similar to the worthless verbiage regarding what "works."  Being practical is only "good" if the principles are sound.  Without sound principles, pragmatism is not desirable.  To put a finer point on it, if someone has come to rob me, I hope he sucks at doing it.

I didn't realize I'd constructed something (though I may have deconstructed a bit), and again I find the comparison a bit unsatisfactory--  the political comparison is incorrect because I suspect a 'liberal' - if those still exist - would agree with much of the Libertarian viewpoint.   As someone who leans progressively, I still think financial soundness, reasonable gun rights, domestic industry, and a strong defense are important things (and I could probably think of a few more).

As far as sound principles are concerned, let's face it;  we're all human, all in the same boat more or less.  As John Kennedy said, we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's future.   Or in the words of Dickens "Business? Mankind was my business".   The hard part is if someone robs you and sucks at it, what should happen?   What should you be able to do about it, and what should happen to the robbers.   And that's where it gets sticky and why we all end up yelling at each other about the death sentence and religion and abortion and everything else.

 But I'm watching football and planned on expounding later.

EDIT: That first part came off rude and not the way I intended.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - September 05 2012 at 21:30

That's pretty dishonest and manipulative. I certainly don't think of Obama as a shining light on a hill or anything like that, but I generally thought he was very eloquent and persuasive in speechmaking at least. This is just wrong. In fact, it's rather Romney-esque in it's dishonesty.

stonebeard wrote: That's pretty dishonest and manipulative. I certainly don't think of Obama as a shining light on a hill or anything like that, but I generally thought he was very eloquent and persuasive in speechmaking at least. This is just wrong. In fact, it's rather Romney-esque in it's dishonesty. Oh, bother.

And I know a lot of leaders throughout history who were very eloquent and persuasive. 

stonebeard wrote: That's pretty dishonest and manipulative. I certainly don't think of Obama as a shining light on a hill or anything like that, but I generally thought he was very eloquent and persuasive in speechmaking at least. This is just wrong. In fact, it's rather Romney-esque in it's dishonesty. Oh, bother.

How is it dishonest and manipulative to point out that a campaign speech directly contradicts his actions once elected?

Epignosis wrote: I must ask you though: Obama said he would cut the deficit in half his first year.  He did not. Obama said his presidency would be a "one year proposition" if he failed.  Yet he is running again. Say what you want about Romney, but you're voting for Obama?  Why?  He's a liar.

Simple: I don't like Romney.  I see the same bobble-headed simpleton jerk who used to push people into lockers in high school that I saw in Ronald Reagan, and I don't want that kind of guy as my president.   Besides do you really believe Romney could not and will not lie?  I think we both know the answer to that, so much so that it isn't realistic to accuse either of 'being a liar'.

Look: I think it's quite possible economically things may largely improve under Romney if only because of the psychological impression that a business President means good business, and I wouldn't fault anyone for that.   Who knows, even I might benefit from a Romney administration if only because people "feel better about spending money" (talk about pragmatic ).   What I won't like is the anti-government theme conservatives love so much.  Ask me if I think the Post Office, the IRS, and grants for better hamster cages could be cut I'd probably agree.   Not so much with the Education Dept, FDA, EPA or Homeland security.





Edited by Atavachron - September 05 2012 at 22:31

and here we go-

That was glib of me, and yes it does sound nice--   I suppose considering a small portion of tax money was democratically alloted to assist states in accurately and uniformly educating our youth, it is a decent investment for a civilized and well-off nation.  It's hard to argue billions for an army and much less for education (not that you are pro-military).   I mean it's our money, many people are parents, and if they think it's fine to spend some of it on schools, so be it.

From all sides and personal experience being in class with high-school graduates I can say that state of education in the US is mostly atrocious. Since when does the Dept. of Education exist? Really, the US did have a reputation for good education back in the day (in other countries) but now everybody knows it's rather laughable (with honorable exceptions, especially in the higher education world). What has this department accomplished? That no child learns how to spell? That people who come from other countries write and speak better English than natives? 

I just find it interesting that people shrug of $56 billion a year for the Department of Education like it's no big deal when they can't even say why we need it.

Other people's money sure is easy to throw away.

EDIT: you deleted your post, but I also wanted to say that I picked the ED out of the departments you listed because, while I disagree with all of them, it's the only one that I can't see any rational justification for.


Edited by thellama73 - September 05 2012 at 23:16