• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

Comunitee said:
No. I may be wrong where it comes to operations, but the reality is that corporations are not people.

Reality has a liberal bias.
Click to expand...

that's just stupid partisan hackery. Liberals are emoters on issues like economics, firearms laws and foreign relations Bible thumpers are equally idiotic on issues like flag burning gay rights and school prayer.

what "liberals" (in reality reactionary parasitic statists) having going for them is that there are more losers than winners and liberal agendas pander to losers and those who want others to pay for what they want
 
johndylan1 said:
Where is the centrist philosophically? If one is a pragmatic, looking for short term answers to immediate problems, maybe just maybe a centrist is the best bet. However if one has a systematic governing philosophy that has one goal in mind, that is protecting the freedom of the individual. The centrist is culpable in the destruction of that goal. In your opinion on a scale of 1-10, 1 being totalitarian, 10 being anarchy; Where would you put the founding fathers, modern libertarians, GOP conservatives, Dem progressives, and finally where are the centrists? Curious to know how far you think we should be willing to go as the centrist position slides further to the left.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant digression.

One should not have a "systematic governing philosophy that has one goal in mind, that is protecting the freedom of the individual".

One should have a governing philosophy that in dynamic balance protects both the freedom and the security of the individual and society.

The centrist position does not slide either to the left or the right.

The centrist position is simply that: centrist, in that it strives to create a dynamic balance between freedom and security, between liberty and justice those create respectively.

Thus the centrist position can never be to the left (economic security over economic freedom and social freedom over economic security) or to the right (economic freedom over econonmic security and social security over social freedom) as otherwise the slid position itself, then favoring either freedom or security over the other with respect to economic or social issues, would no longer be centrist.
 
Mike.Redd said:
In an interview with The Washington Post, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the oldest Supreme Court Justice and also one of the most liberal, said that she predicts another Democrat in the White House
Click to expand...

She is under pressure to retire while Obama is in the White House. She doesn't want to retire. She has one of the most interesting jobs in the world. And - whatever you think about Scalia or Kennedy "ideologically" - chatting with them over lunch should be a little more intellectually rewarding than playing bingo (or whatever it is retired upper class Jewish ladies do). Of course she "predicts another Democrat".
 
Mike.Redd said:
In an interview with The Washington Post, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the oldest Supreme Court Justice and also one of the most liberal, said that she predicts another Democrat in the White House.

From The Washington Post:

Do you agree with her? or is she just a crazy old bat?
Click to expand...
Will he be someone who spends more time playing golf than working? If so, then yeah, I'd believe the crazy old bat. Once the precedent is set that the office of the President of the United States is just another entitlement position, then every Dem worth his salt will be clamoring for a tee time.
 
Cyrylek said:
She is under pressure to retire while Obama is in the White House. She doesn't want to retire. She has one of the most interesting jobs in the world. And - whatever you think about Scalia or Kennedy "ideologically" - chatting with them over lunch should be a little more intellectually rewarding than playing bingo (or whatever it is retired upper class Jewish ladies do). Of course she "predicts another Democrat".
Click to expand...

lol, I noticed you didn't mention Thomas there
 
Obama IS a centrist President. Only flakes like Ted Cruz think he's a flaming liberal.

Ontologuy said:
False, obviously.

Obama is the nation's leading Multi-Cultural Internationalist, and that alone makes him a solid left-winger, a liberal.

His position on amnesty and legalizataion for 20 million illegal aliens and the economic ramifications of such, Obmacare (obviously), his encouragement of corporations hiring people from other countries instead of Americans, his position on abortion, his position on the oxymoronic "gay marriage", his position on spend, spend, spend big government .. all testify to what we've long intuitively known, that Obama is a liberal, obviously, and clearly.
Click to expand...
Newsflash: We have a nation of over 300 million people. A big nation requires big government with big spending. You want to live with "smaller government"? Move to Somalia.

If Obama were the "solid left-winger" you want people to believe he is, he would have socialized the energy industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry and Walmart, confiscated their profits -- and thus balanced the budget. (Well, maybe cut the deficit in half.)

If Obama were a "left-winger," he would have actually done what you lying right-wingers said he did: "Rammed socialized medicine down our throats." He would have forced universal health care on us. Instead, he chickened out on the public option, and adopted Heritagecare/Romneycare as Obamacare, a plan that will make the insurance industry billions, because they will have millions of new customers. Obamacare is not socialist. It is as capitalist as hell.

If Obama were a "left-winger," he would have pulled all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, struck down all aborition and immigration restrictions, legalized drugs, and confiscated guns. He has done none of those things.

The true left-wingers of this country feel a frustration with him that is nearly equal to your hatred of him.

Also, one of the things you people hate the most about him is the spying thing. That is not something a liberal would do. An authoritarian would (either communist, left, or fascist, right), but no liberal would do it.

You call Obama a "solid left-winger" and yourself a "centrist." If you truly believe either half of that, then neither half is true.
 
No. I may be wrong where it comes to operations, but the reality is that corporations are not people.

Reality has a liberal bias.
TurtleDude said:
that's just stupid partisan hackery. Liberals are emoters on issues like economics, firearms laws and foreign relations Bible thumpers are equally idiotic on issues like flag burning gay rights and school prayer.

what "liberals" (in reality reactionary parasitic statists) having going for them is that there are more losers than winners and liberal agendas pander to losers and those who want others to pay for what they want
Click to expand...
You libertarians are even crazier than the conservatives. You're so selfish, you make neocons look like Christians.

Yes, there are more losers than winners. That's because there are sabotagers. As James Madison, a man of whom you may or may not have heard, once said, "If men were angels, no government is necessary." Translation: Men are not angels, and some of them are predators, so we have governments to make, and enforce, laws to protect people from predators.

Whose side are you on? The poor people, or the people keeping them poor? It's not themselves, and you know it. Whether you accept it determines whether you can be trusted with the "self-government" that you libertarians love to rant about. Because if you can't accept it, then, like a child, a criminal, or someone who is mentally ill, you are not mentally competent enough to govern yourself.
 
Comunitee said:
Obama IS a centrist President. Only flakes like Ted Cruz think he's a flaming liberal.


Newsflash: We have a nation of over 300 million people. A big nation requires big government with big spending. You want to live with "smaller government"? Move to Somalia.

If Obama were the "solid left-winger" you want people to believe he is, he would have socialized the energy industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry and Walmart, confiscated their profits -- and thus balanced the budget. (Well, maybe cut the deficit in half.)

If Obama were a "left-winger," he would have actually done what you lying right-wingers said he did: "Rammed socialized medicine down our throats." He would have forced universal health care on us. Instead, he chickened out on the public option, and adopted Heritagecare/Romneycare as Obamacare, a plan that will make the insurance industry billions, because they will have millions of new customers. Obamacare is not socialist. It is as capitalist as hell.

If Obama were a "left-winger," he would have pulled all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, struck down all aborition and immigration restrictions, legalized drugs, and confiscated guns. He has done none of those things.

The true left-wingers of this country feel a frustration with him that is nearly equal to your hatred of him.

Also, one of the things you people hate the most about him is the spying thing. That is not something a liberal would do. An authoritarian would (either communist, left, or fascist, right), but no liberal would do it.

You call Obama a "solid left-winger" and yourself a "centrist." If you truly believe either half of that, then neither half is true.
Click to expand...
Your if-then premise-conclusions are clearly false, contrived, erroneous jumps.

On the surface of form, they make for good rhetoric, which is thus typical of "very liberal" (as you self-describe) extremists.

But on easy examination of substance, they are revealed to be huge fails.

As always.

A word to the wise: if a "very liberal" individual is opposed to a critique of someone or their policies, odds are high that that which is being critiqued lives very close to the the "very liberal" complaining individual's ideologically extremist door, a lot closer than the other side perspective of that which is being critiqued.

Now that's an if-then premise and conclusion we can substantively take to the bank. :cool:
 
d0gbreath said:
Really. We should revoke her freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Where you aware, that military officers have curtailed free speech, that they can't for instance publicly criticized the president? This would not be an unprecedented limitation.
 
Comunitee said:
Obama IS a centrist President. Only flakes like Ted Cruz think he's a flaming liberal.
Click to expand...

By that standard, we've never had a right-wing President either. Obama, like Reagan, is as ideological as he can get away with. Bill Clinton was actually a centrist. Obama is a liberal who is stymied by a nation that is not liberal.


Newsflash: We have a nation of over 300 million people. A big nation requires big government with big spending. You want to live with "smaller government"? Move to Somalia.
Click to expand...

Spending is proportional. The US government historically has spent about 19% of GDP and should remain at that percentage or a little lower. Under Obama, spending rose, at least until Republicans started curtailing it so that it should return to the historical average in a couple more years.


If Obama were the "solid left-winger" you want people to believe he is, he would have socialized the energy industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry and Walmart, confiscated their profits -- and thus balanced the budget. (Well, maybe cut the deficit in half.)
Click to expand...

He's as left wing as he can get away with, again. He was so left wing that he and his party were historically rejected in 2010 for their actions. The only reason he's still in the White House today is because he managed to make the election about personalities instead of ideology.

Ginsburg is right though, Democrats right now have an advantage in general elections, Republicans have an advantage in midterms or special elections. That's because the Democratic base is big enough now to just make turning them out important, and Obama relied on a base-turning strategy, accepting that he'd lose independents. It worked. It won't work so well in 2014, which should accelerate his lame duck status.
 
Mike.Redd said:
In an interview with The Washington Post, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the oldest Supreme Court Justice and also one of the most liberal, said that she predicts another Democrat in the White House.

From The Washington Post:


Do you agree with her? or is she just a crazy old bat?

Source: Rare.us | Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House.
Click to expand...

I would say yes with the caveat that a lot depends on what major events occur between now and 2016. I will say this, electoral politics/map plays right into the Democratic hands. Take the Six most populace states of CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, the democrats own 4 of them with 124 electoral votes, the republicans, only TX 38 and Florida is a toss up that leans Democratic. But we won't count FL yet. Then the Democrats own the Northeast with the possible exception of NH, which is a toss up. So in those states I mentioned to include all the northeast the Dems are starting out with a 183-38 advantage with Florida and NH being toss ups.

Okay, the south is republican, but you can't add VA or NC, VA went to Obama the last years and NC was won by romney by a thin 100,000 votes or so, Let's leave those two states as toss ups and only count the south. The EV is now 183 to 118. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan will go Dem, Indiana probably Republican and we can leave Ohio as a toss up. Total now is 219 to 129. 270 is needed to win.

Out west along with CA, OR, WA and Hawaii are strongly Democratic, make that total 242-129. The plain and rocky mountain states, Iowa is goes Democratic most of the time, Colorado and NM also, I would say in 2016 they will follow that trend, what about NV, lets leave NV as a toss up and then put the rest of the plains and mountain states in the GOP column. You now have 262 D 191 R with 270 to win. Now remember the toss up states, NH, VA, NC, OH, FL, NV. Whomever the GOP nominee is would have to win all of them with the exception of NH. I would say that it is high odds against it.

But the above scenero is generic Republican vs. generic Democrat. A charismatic candidate, a candidate that is as atractive to Indies as republicans could change the above and limit what is now a Democratic Electoral advantage. Once names are added, generic goes out the window or it doesn't depending on the name.
 
Perotista said:
I would say yes with the caveat that a lot depends on what major events occur between now and 2016. I will say this, electoral politics/map plays right into the Democratic hands. Take the Six most populace states of CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, the democrats own 4 of them with 124 electoral votes, the republicans, only TX 38 and Florida is a toss up that leans Democratic. But we won't count FL yet. Then the Democrats own the Northeast with the possible exception of NH, which is a toss up. So in those states I mentioned to include all the northeast the Dems are starting out with a 183-38 advantage with Florida and NH being toss ups.

Okay, the south is republican, but you can't add VA or NC, VA went to Obama the last years and NC was won by romney by a thin 100,000 votes or so, Let's leave those two states as toss ups and only count the south. The EV is now 183 to 118. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan will go Dem, Indiana probably Republican and we can leave Ohio as a toss up. Total now is 219 to 129. 270 is needed to win.

Out west along with CA, OR, WA and Hawaii are strongly Democratic, make that total 242-129. The plain and rocky mountain states, Iowa is goes Democratic most of the time, Colorado and NM also, I would say in 2016 they will follow that trend, what about NV, lets leave NV as a toss up and then put the rest of the plains and mountain states in the GOP column. You now have 262 D 191 R with 270 to win. Now remember the toss up states, NH, VA, NC, OH, FL, NV. Whomever the GOP nominee is would have to win all of them with the exception of NH. I would say that it is high odds against it.

But the above scenero is generic Republican vs. generic Democrat. A charismatic candidate, a candidate that is as atractive to Indies as republicans could change the above and limit what is now a Democratic Electoral advantage. Once names are added, generic goes out the window or it doesn't depending on the name.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

I'm very interested in the 2014 elections, for two reasons. 1) It could show us what the Independents really think about the direction the country is headed in, and 2) it could be a snapshot of what 2016 might bring...depending on the candidates for POTUS. Tricky stuff here, since we're so divided. :thinking:
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

I'm very interested in the 2014 elections, for two reasons. 1) It could show us what the Independents really think about the direction the country is headed in, and 2) it could be a snapshot of what 2016 might bring...depending on the candidates for POTUS. Tricky stuff here, since we're so divided. :thinking:
Click to expand...

2014 won't tell us a thing about 2016 just like 2010 didn't tell us anything about 2012. It all depends on whom the candidates are, what type of major events take place, how people feel about the direction of the country and more important, their own pocket book. What issues are hot usually plays a lot into it also. Fiscal and defense if hot issues usually play in the republicans favor, social issues and justice into the Democrats.

the problem or more accurately, the question is where do independents go or whom do they vote for? When Reagan too office only 26% of the electorate identified themselves as independents, 70% identified or affiliated themselves with the two major parties. 33 years later, the numbers are 45% say they are independents, up 19 points and 53% now identify or affiliate themselves with the two major parties. A drop of 17 points.

I have no doubt the majority of independents are feed up with both parties. But where do they go, whom do they vote for in an election? 95% and higher of indies will vote for one of the two major party candidates, a candidate they consider the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate. They are not voting for any of the candidate, only against the or what they consider the most evil or the worst candidate. I like to use last years Missouri Senate race as an example, 60% of Missourians did want McCaskill, but 69% of Missourians didn't want Aiken. McCaskill won and she won not because the majority of Missourians wanted her, she won because she was perceived as not as bad as Aiken.

I expect a lot more than usual more independents to stay home next year and not vote at all. To they the system is messed up, the choices suck, whom do you vote for when you do not want a Republican or Democrat but really aren't given that choice? Republicans and Democrats have really screwed up this country, then they write the election laws to make sure no viable third party ever challenges them so they can continue to screw up the country even more. This is one reason I think the House will remain Republican and the senate democratic next year, those people, independents which cause sea change elections will remain in their houses next year and not bother to go to the polls. Why should they, nothing ever changes.

Now that might with a charismatic independent wealthy candidate who decides to run in 2016 as a third party candidate. One who makes sense, perhaps in the Perot mode. He came twenty years too early. By that I mean only 39% of the electorate was willing to vote for a third party candidate back then. Today that number is up to 81%. Only it has to be the right candidate. That candidate has to have money to get his message out and to challenge the election laws to get him on the ballot. Corporations and the like will give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Republicans and democrats and not a cent to any third party. so money is also a big issue when it comes to challenging the two major parties. Corporations do not want to have to add a third party to their giving, that cost them more and they too will work in tandem with the two major parties to ensure no viable third party rises.

Sorry about rambling, but you got me in one of my moods.
 
Perotista said:
2014 won't tell us a thing about 2016 just like 2010 didn't tell us anything about 2012. It all depends on whom the candidates are, what type of major events take place, how people feel about the direction of the country and more important, their own pocket book. What issues are hot usually plays a lot into it also. Fiscal and defense if hot issues usually play in the republicans favor, social issues and justice into the Democrats.

the problem or more accurately, the question is where do independents go or whom do they vote for? When Reagan too office only 26% of the electorate identified themselves as independents, 70% identified or affiliated themselves with the two major parties. 33 years later, the numbers are 45% say they are independents, up 19 points and 53% now identify or affiliate themselves with the two major parties. A drop of 17 points.

I have no doubt the majority of independents are feed up with both parties. But where do they go, whom do they vote for in an election? 95% and higher of indies will vote for one of the two major party candidates, a candidate they consider the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate. They are not voting for any of the candidate, only against the or what they consider the most evil or the worst candidate. I like to use last years Missouri Senate race as an example, 60% of Missourians did want McCaskill, but 69% of Missourians didn't want Aiken. McCaskill won and she won not because the majority of Missourians wanted her, she won because she was perceived as not as bad as Aiken.

I expect a lot more than usual more independents to stay home next year and not vote at all. To they the system is messed up, the choices suck, whom do you vote for when you do not want a Republican or Democrat but really aren't given that choice? Republicans and Democrats have really screwed up this country, then they write the election laws to make sure no viable third party ever challenges them so they can continue to screw up the country even more. This is one reason I think the House will remain Republican and the senate democratic next year, those people, independents which cause sea change elections will remain in their houses next year and not bother to go to the polls. Why should they, nothing ever changes.

Now that might with a charismatic independent wealthy candidate who decides to run in 2016 as a third party candidate. One who makes sense, perhaps in the Perot mode. He came twenty years too early. By that I mean only 39% of the electorate was willing to vote for a third party candidate back then. Today that number is up to 81%. Only it has to be the right candidate. That candidate has to have money to get his message out and to challenge the election laws to get him on the ballot. Corporations and the like will give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Republicans and democrats and not a cent to any third party. so money is also a big issue when it comes to challenging the two major parties. Corporations do not want to have to add a third party to their giving, that cost them more and they too will work in tandem with the two major parties to ensure no viable third party rises.

Sorry about rambling, but you got me in one of my moods.
Click to expand...

Pero, I voted for Ross Perot, because he made sense! Unfortunately for us, his message for our future, though accurate, was not enough to change the way things are done by the two major parties. So here we are! I agree with your saying, "a pox on both parties!"

Greetings. :2wave:
 
polgara said:
Pero, I voted for Ross Perot, because he made sense! Unfortunately for us, his message for our future, though accurate, was not enough to change the way things are done by the two major parties. So here we are! I agree with your saying, "a pox on both parties!"

Greetings. :2wave:
Click to expand...

i am one of a few that put his actions where his talk is. I have voted third party in 5 out of the last 6 presidential election. My McCain vote being the only one for a major party candidate. One can talk all they want about the pox on both house and all that is is talk. Until the voters start voting for someone else besides Republicans and Democrats, all their talk is nothing but hot air and the two major parties know that. The two major parties will continue to dupe them into their votes. people will never learn.
 
Perotista said:
i am one of a few that put his actions where his talk is. I have voted third party in 5 out of the last 6 presidential election. My McCain vote being the only one for a major party candidate. One can talk all they want about the pox on both house and all that is is talk. Until the voters start voting for someone else besides Republicans and Democrats, all their talk is nothing but hot air and the two major parties know that. The two major parties will continue to dupe them into their votes. people will never learn.
Click to expand...

Is it just 1) laziness, or 2) party loyalty, or 3) maybe we really are as stupid as they figure we are? I just hate to pick Door 3, Pero! To use an analogy, I guess everyone likes their crook---it's the others that are the problem! :sigh:
 
polgara said:
Is it just 1) laziness, or 2) party loyalty, or 3) maybe we really are as stupid as they figure we are? I just hate to pick Door 3, Pero! To use an analogy, I guess everyone likes their crook---it's the others that are the problem! :sigh:
Click to expand...

Slogans, talking points, the word of the day, rhetoric without substance and out right lies decide elections. Not substance or even stances on issues, I mean real stances and not some made up stance. Maybe people are really happy with the direction of the country and the people and parties leading it, only they like to bitc... about it. Maybe they don't care and just go through the motions of caring and voting, after all it is expected of them.

Perhaps people are followers and sheep that like to be lead around by the nose by those political elites in Washington. I don't know. But I do know nothing will change and it will be business as usual until someone or some other party challenges the two major parties. Sure Perot lost, but both parties adopted a lot of his ideas, his agenda and in the year 2000 we probably came as close to a balanced budget, where spending matches revenues that we will ever come. Perot scared the two major parties to death and since then they have tighten up their election laws to ensure no third party becomes viable. They, the two major parties even threw the League of Woman's voters out of running the presidential debates. After all, the League had the gull to let Perot participate in them. Talk about one corrupt system and it is this system we are trying to force on the rest of the world. Give me a break.
 
It's way too early to make that kind of prediction. The election isn't for 3 more years, a lot can happen in that time. And we don't even know who's running.
 
Ontologuy said:
Irrelevant digression.

One should not have a "systematic governing philosophy that has one goal in mind, that is protecting the freedom of the individual".

One should have a governing philosophy that in dynamic balance protects both the freedom and the security of the individual and society.

The centrist position does not slide either to the left or the right.

The centrist position is simply that: centrist, in that it strives to create a dynamic balance between freedom and security, between liberty and justice those create respectively.

Thus the centrist position can never be to the left (economic security over economic freedom and social freedom over economic security) or to the right (economic freedom over econonmic security and social security over social freedom) as otherwise the slid position itself, then favoring either freedom or security over the other with respect to economic or social issues, would no longer be centrist.
Click to expand...

What I was trying to pin down is how (or where on the spectrum) your view of the center is defined. You gave me some Idea with your post, and the tip off for me is your use of the word "Dynamic", or ever changing, yet you curiously deny the the centrist position has moved to the left. It has. Secondly, I do appreciate the sentiment of trying to be a problem solver from the pragmatic middle however, as history has shown, people adjust to laws. The immoral will game the system and take advantage of others, necessitating more laws ad infinitum. The best approach for federal government is to protect freedom and allow people to become expert problem solvers for themselves and their local communities via local governments and charity. The reason I used the phrase "systematic philosophy" is because free individuals subsist in the notion of security and justice, this is always appropriate.
 
Mike.Redd said:
In an interview with The Washington Post, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the oldest Supreme Court Justice and also one of the most liberal, said that she predicts another Democrat in the White House.

From The Washington Post:


Do you agree with her? or is she just a crazy old bat?

Source: Rare.us | Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House.
Click to expand...

Not very professional or ethical for a Supreme Court Justice to be making such comments while still sitting on the bench. She must be a liberal.

If the SCOTUS were have to face another decision on a Presidential election as it did in 2000, she would have to remove herself from the bench. She's not to bright is she ?
 
johndylan1 said:
What I was trying to pin down is how (or where on the spectrum) your view of the center is defined. You gave me some Idea with your post,
Click to expand...
The dynamic balance between freedom and security is a yin-yang complementary relationship.

It is a unique perspective to centrists as compared with others, such as liberals (preferring social freedom over social security and economic security over economic freedom) and conservatives (preferring social security over social freedom and economic freedom over economic security).


johndylan1 said:
and the tip off for me
Click to expand...
Yes, for you ..

.. Meaning you filtered via your own projection, transferrence, whatever ..


johndylan1 said:
is your use of the word "Dynamic", or ever changing,
Click to expand...
.. Causing you to take out of context and misconstrue to suit your pre-conceived ideology as you've done here ..


johndylan1 said:
yet you curiously deny the the centrist position has moved to the left. It has.
Click to expand...
.. So you can feel confident with your erroneous jump to conclusion here. :roll:

By definition, a centrist position strives to balance the complementary yin-yang forces of freedom and security, liberty and justice respectively that they create.

Succeeding at the task can only occur at the center.

There is no "movement to the left" or the right for true centrism, obviously.


johndylan1 said:
Secondly, I do appreciate the sentiment of trying to be a problem solver from the pragmatic middle however, as history has shown, people adjust to laws. The immoral will game the system and take advantage of others, necessitating more laws ad infinitum. The best approach for federal government is to protect freedom and allow people to become expert problem solvers for themselves and their local communities via local governments and charity. The reason I used the phrase "systematic philosophy" is because free individuals subsist in the notion of security and justice, this is always appropriate.
Click to expand...
Whatever ..

If security is not protected along with freedom, then, whether the arena is the social, economic, or combined socioeconomic, a libertarian extreme will result.

Is that what you prefer?

Your "lean" is "undisclosed" .. but are you really a libertarian?
 
Ontologuy said:
The dynamic balance between freedom and security is a yin-yang complementary relationship.

It is a unique perspective to centrists as compared with others, such as liberals (preferring social freedom over social security and economic security over economic freedom) and conservatives (preferring social security over social freedom and economic freedom over economic security).



Yes, for you ..

.. Meaning you filtered via your own projection, transferrence, whatever ..



.. Causing you to take out of context and misconstrue to suit your pre-conceived ideology as you've done here ..



.. So you can feel confident with your erroneous jump to conclusion here. :roll:

By definition, a centrist position strives to balance the complementary yin-yang forces of freedom and security, liberty and justice respectively that they create.

Succeeding at the task can only occur at the center.

There is no "movement to the left" or the right for true centrism, obviously.



Whatever ..

If security is not protected along with freedom, then, whether the arena is the social, economic, or combined socioeconomic, a libertarian extreme will result.

Is that what you prefer?

Your "lean" is "undisclosed" .. but are you really a libertarian?
Click to expand...

MMM... I don't think I made up the definition for the word "dynamic", and I didn't use it as a descriptor; you did that.
No I wouldn't consider myself libertarian. I consider myself a Moralist, which has me firmly leaning toward libertarian ism, but without the dope and such.
 
Comunitee said:
Obama IS a centrist President. Only flakes like Ted Cruz think he's a flaming liberal.


Newsflash: We have a nation of over 300 million people. A big nation requires big government with big spending. You want to live with "smaller government"? Move to Somalia.

If Obama were the "solid left-winger" you want people to believe he is, he would have socialized the energy industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry and Walmart, confiscated their profits -- and thus balanced the budget. (Well, maybe cut the deficit in half.)

If Obama were a "left-winger," he would have actually done what you lying right-wingers said he did: "Rammed socialized medicine down our throats." He would have forced universal health care on us. Instead, he chickened out on the public option, and adopted Heritagecare/Romneycare as Obamacare, a plan that will make the insurance industry billions, because they will have millions of new customers. Obamacare is not socialist. It is as capitalist as hell.

If Obama were a "left-winger," he would have pulled all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, struck down all aborition and immigration restrictions, legalized drugs, and confiscated guns. He has done none of those things.

The true left-wingers of this country feel a frustration with him that is nearly equal to your hatred of him.

Also, one of the things you people hate the most about him is the spying thing. That is not something a liberal would do. An authoritarian would (either communist, left, or fascist, right), but no liberal would do it.

You call Obama a "solid left-winger" and yourself a "centrist." If you truly believe either half of that, then neither half is true.
Click to expand...

Well if you think communism is a normal part of the political spectrum I suppose you can make such an idiotic claim.

He's one of the three most leftwing presidents we have had since WWI. FDR, LBJ and Obama are the three most reactionary parasitic statists in almost 100 years. FAR more leftwing than Truman, JFK, Clinton or Carter
 
TurtleDude said:
Well if you think communism is a normal part of the political spectrum I suppose you can make such an idiotic claim.

He's one of the three most leftwing presidents we have had since WWI. FDR, LBJ and Obama are the three most reactionary parasitic statists in almost 100 years. FAR more leftwing than Truman, JFK, Clinton or Carter
Click to expand...

... as far as welfare programs go, mandatory health insurance isn't 1/100 of what Social Security or Medicare are. It exists for the same reason and under the same logic car insurance does, because uninsured persons pose a prohibitively expensive risk to the public good.

As a solution to the 20% of Americans with no coverage and skyrocketing premiums, it is centrism at its most bland and uncontroversial. The only reason it became controversial was because Republicans needed a new program to be their whipping boy because it became increasingly obvious their welfare dependent constituents were reacting badly to their posturing on Social Security and Medicare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom