"liberal independent" has no meaning. independents have been candidates to the right of democrats. they are independent because they vote with republicans on some issues and democrats on other issues.
Unless you identify completely with the platform of one of the two major parties, the sum of an individual's political beliefs cannot be plotted on a one-dimensional axis. For example, I believe in campaign finance reform, hold predominantly conservative financial views, support gay marriage and abortion, am a staunch environmentalist, and am completely against most forms of gun control. Where do I lie on your hypothetical line?
Exactly, I see it as more circular as many times i have difficulty differentiating between my libertarian and anarchist leaning friends. Both want to take care of shit themselves. One is supposed far right and one is supposed far left, but their jibs are cut the same.
"liberal independent" has no meaning. independents have been candidates to the right of democrats. they are independent because they vote with republicans on some issues and democrats on other issues.
Unless you identify completely with the platform of one of the two major parties, the sum of an individual's political beliefs cannot be plotted on a one-dimensional axis. For example, I believe in campaign finance reform, hold predominantly conservative financial views, support gay marriage and abortion, am a staunch environmentalist, and am completely against most forms of gun control. Where do I lie on your hypothetical line?
you are lost. i was addressing my argument to those who say they are too liberal for the democratic party. If you are anti-gun control and have "conservative financial views", those views are shared by republicans. so you don't fit into the discussion at all.
lol. it appears that you are the one who is lost dude.
lemme try to break this down for you, if you still disagree, ok fair enough:
political issues = defined by views of liberals v. conservatives
democrats = liberals
republicans = conservative
independents = historically a mix of both
you can't say you are too liberal for the democratic party, that has no relevance, because there is no other party that is more liberal, or even claims to be. dems are by definition the liberals. if you don't think the candidates are espousing democratic (liberal) views, then you have an issue with the candidates, not the party. other parties that have been formed (green party, libertarians) have a specific political agenda and have not said "we are more liberal than democrats".
I think most normal people have a combination of liberal and conservative views, so yes - I disagree with you on that. You see these things as monolithic, and I find that to be tremendously naive and uninformed.
I do not find the Democratic Party to be particularly "liberal" at this point in time. The statement that they are the "most liberal" party in a two party system is virtually meaningless. That is like saying, between ground chuck and celery, celery is sweeter. Doesn't mean that celery is chocolate.
I don't even really understand what you mean regarding the Green Party's "specific political agenda" - I find the Green Party to be much more liberal than the Democrats overall. I vote Green with some frequency but am not prepared at this time to affiliate completely with that party.
I don't see what's so hard to understand about all this...
Exactly. Liberal means that you believe it is the government's role to actively address the problems faced by the governed through taxation and the redistribution of funds through government programs. Conservative means you believe that such taxation and redistribution should be minimal, and that the government should allow market forces to address or ignore those problems. It is easy to be more liberal than the Democratic party or more conservative than the Republican party.
Still, at least now I understand why you've been spouting nonsense all afternoon.
"liberal independent" has no meaning. independents have been candidates to the right of democrats. they are independent because they vote with republicans on some issues and democrats on other issues.
I've read this like 20 times now and it still makes absolutely no sense.
"liberal independent" has no meaning. independents have been candidates to the right of democrats. they are independent because they vote with republicans on some issues and democrats on other issues.
I've read this like 20 times now and it still makes absolutely no sense.
KBH's logic assumes that everything that the democrats do is liberal and everything that the republicans do is conservative, because apparently democrat=liberal and republican=conservative.
Therefore, if someone agrees with some of each, it makes them to the right of democrats.
Exactly. Liberal means that you believe it is the government's role to actively address the problems faced by the governed through taxation and the redistribution of funds through government programs. Conservative means you believe that such taxation and redistribution should be minimal, and that the government should allow market forces to address or ignore those problems. It is easy to be more liberal than the Democratic party or more conservative than the Republican party.
Still, at least now I understand why you've been spouting nonsense all afternoon.
we are talking about political issues - and they exist based on party lines. if dems and republicans agree on something its not an issue. whatever definition you just plucked out of your economics book ignores what i thought was going to be, at the very least, plucked out of your politics 101 book (big govt v. small govt). regardless, its irrelevant to this discussion and the topic - which is why would anyone who says they are more liberal than the current politicians elected in the democratic party not register as a democrat? the answer still is that there is no reason because there is no such alternative, more liberal, party. the green party is not based on being "more liberal" than the democrats. look up Ralph Nader's bio and you should get the picture.
"liberal independent" has no meaning. independents have been candidates to the right of democrats. they are independent because they vote with republicans on some issues and democrats on other issues.
I've read this like 20 times now and it still makes absolutely no sense.
you don't register as an independent if you are "more liberal" than the democratic party. there is no definition of an independent candidate, so we define it by who has run as an independent, and they are people with a mix of republican and democratic views.
people have tried to claim that they are too liberal to be a democrat, so therefore they registered as an independent. that "still makes absolutely no sense" to me.
redistribution of wealth, lets just call it what it is.
The republicans have had no qualms about taking my money all these years. Do you guys really believe modern republicans are fiscally conservative? What a load of...
Exactly. Liberal means that you believe it is the government's role to actively address the problems faced by the governed through taxation and the redistribution of funds through government programs. Conservative means you believe that such taxation and redistribution should be minimal, and that the government should allow market forces to address or ignore those problems. It is easy to be more liberal than the Democratic party or more conservative than the Republican party.
Still, at least now I understand why you've been spouting nonsense all afternoon.
we are talking about political issues - and they exist based on party lines. if dems and republicans agree on something its not an issue. whatever definition you just plucked out of your economics book ignores what i thought was going to be, at the very least, plucked out of your politics 101 book (big govt v. small govt).
It's an issue to me if I don't agree with both parties. And this will probably surprise you, but many of us are well-educated and intelligent people who actually have a working understanding of politics without having to resort to reference books, and can elucidate that understanding. Hell, some of us even get paid to do it.
the green party is not based on being "more liberal" than the democrats. look up Ralph Nader's bio and you should get the picture.
Just curious, why do you equate the Green Party with Ralph Nader? I don't believe they've chosen their 2008 candidate, and, according to this, Cynthia McKinney is in the lead. And Nader makes no reference to the Green Party on his site. It looks like he's planning to run as an independent.
Not that I'd argue for the viability of either Nader or the Green Party.
redistribution of wealth, lets just call it what it is.
Yeah, but once your wealth gets into my hands, I spend it, making it funds. I could use some more funds, by the way. When are you getting that six-figure salary, again? I want my slice of the Saba pie.
there is no definition of an independent candidate, so we define it by who has run as an independent,
That's missing the point completely. As an Independent, I define my own political positions. You and your unnamed associates don't get to do it for me. And an Independent voter has no correlation to Independent candidates. I am independent of the two major political parties, the candidate is independent of the two major political parties, and the candidate and I are independent of each other.
Exactly. Liberal means that you believe it is the government's role to actively address the problems faced by the governed through taxation and the redistribution of funds through government programs. Conservative means you believe that such taxation and redistribution should be minimal, and that the government should allow market forces to address or ignore those problems. It is easy to be more liberal than the Democratic party or more conservative than the Republican party.
Still, at least now I understand why you've been spouting nonsense all afternoon.
we are talking about political issues - and they exist based on party lines. if dems and republicans agree on something its not an issue. whatever definition you just plucked out of your economics book ignores what i thought was going to be, at the very least, plucked out of your politics 101 book (big govt v. small govt).
It's an issue to me if I don't agree with both parties. And this will probably surprise you, but many of us are well-educated and intelligent people who actually have a working understanding of politics without having to resort to reference books, and can elucidate that understanding. Hell, some of us even get paid to do it.
you said you are anti gun control and for "conservative" financial reform so you don't fit into the scenario being discussed, other than to sidetrack the debate by making irrelevant comments or gratuitous comments about how you make a living educating/writing about politics - which i find hard to believe.
there is no definition of an independent candidate, so we define it by who has run as an independent,
That's missing the point completely. As an Independent, I define my own political positions. You and your unnamed associates don't get to do it for me. And an Independent voter has no correlation to Independent candidates. I am independent of the two major political parties, the candidate is independent of the two major political parties, and the candidate and I are independent of each other.
i'm missing what point completely? you entered yourself into the discussion, even though your own political views disqualify you from what is being discussed.
did we not get enough "me" time this week? lets hear some more about "i".
and please go on about how you get paid to think/write/talk some more.
you said you are anti gun control and for "conservative" financial reform so you don't fit into the scenario being discussed, other than to sidetrack the debate by making irrelevant comments or gratuitous comments about how you make a living educating/writing about politics - which i find hard to believe.
I think you lost sight of the scenario a while ago. But sorry to sidetrack the argument???it was going swimmingly for you. And I did not imply that I make my living writing about politics, I implied that some members of the board do. I do, however, write about documentaries about politics on a regular basis, among other things.
Still, I will honor your wishes and return to work, which today consists of writing about classical, jazz, and Celtic music. I wish you the best of luck in converting the political heathens to whatever underlying premise you've been trying so unsuccessfully to explain.
"liberal independent" has no meaning. independents have been candidates to the right of democrats. they are independent because they vote with republicans on some issues and democrats on other issues.
I've read this like 20 times now and it still makes absolutely no sense.
you don't register as an independent if you are "more liberal" than the democratic party. there is no definition of an independent candidate, so we define it by who has run as an independent, and they are people with a mix of republican and democratic views.
No, you define it by who the available independent candidates are.
Some of us take it at face value, i.e., unaffiliated with either major party.
This is symptomatic of your complete inability to think outside of a two-party paradigm.
you said you are anti gun control and for "conservative" financial reform so you don't fit into the scenario being discussed, other than to sidetrack the debate by making irrelevant comments or gratuitous comments about how you make a living educating/writing about politics - which i find hard to believe.
I think you lost sight of the scenario a while ago. But sorry to sidetrack the argument???it was going swimmingly for you. And I did not imply that I make my living writing about politics, I implied that some members of the board do. I do, however, write about documentaries about politics on a regular basis, among other things.
Still, I will honor your wishes and return to work, which today consists of writing about classical, jazz, and Celtic music. I wish you the best of luck in converting the political heathens to whatever underlying premise you've been trying so unsuccessfully to explain.
great, get that money, i appreciate hearing about all your work updates. please try to give me a silent shout out by incorporating the word "swimmingly" into your review of celtic music. that's a good look.
i appreciate hearing about all your work updates. please try to give me a silent shout out by incorporating the word "swimmingly" into your review of celtic music. that's a good look.
No sweat. I was thinking of titling the piece, "The Joan Baez Interview From Hell". Since you invented that turn of phrase, that would be the ultimate compliment, no?
Nader. You have a pretty myopic view of party allegiances.
PLEASE. you too? the guy is a one issue egomaniac. thats your alternative to the democratic party. great.
???I???ve decided that talking to a conservative is like talking to a refrigerator. The light goes on; the light goes off. It isn???t going to do anything that isn???t built into it. And I???m not going to talk to a conservative any more than I???d talk to my damn refrigerator. Now, working for the democratic party, that???s kind of like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.??? -Utah Philips
Bruce Phillips is the man. Here is a story of his that I have lived my life by:
Bruce is sitting on his porch playing guitar every morning. His banker neighbor gets into his car and drives to work every morning. When he gets home at night old Utah is still sitting on the porch playing the guitar.
Banker: Why don't you get a job. Utah: Why would I want to do that? If you got a job you could save some money. Why would I want to do that? You could open a bank account and start saving for your future. Why would I want to do that? So you could retire. What would I do then? Well you could sit on your porch all day and play guitar. Thats what I am doing now!
Comments
Exactly, I see it as more circular as many times i have difficulty differentiating between my libertarian and anarchist leaning friends. Both want to take care of shit themselves. One is supposed far right and one is supposed far left, but their jibs are cut the same.
you are lost. i was addressing my argument to those who say they are too liberal for the democratic party. If you are anti-gun control and have "conservative financial views", those views are shared by republicans. so you don't fit into the discussion at all.
Why do I have a strong sense that the one KVH is about to warn us lost independents of the eternal fires that await us in hell?
lemme try to break this down for you, if you still disagree, ok fair enough:
political issues = defined by views of liberals v. conservatives
democrats = liberals
republicans = conservative
independents = historically a mix of both
you can't say you are too liberal for the democratic party, that has no relevance, because there is no other party that is more liberal, or even claims to be. dems are by definition the liberals. if you don't think the candidates are espousing democratic (liberal) views, then you have an issue with the candidates, not the party. other parties that have been formed (green party, libertarians) have a specific political agenda and have not said "we are more liberal than democrats".
Faulty reasoning.
I do not find the Democratic Party to be particularly "liberal" at this point in time. The statement that they are the "most liberal" party in a two party system is virtually meaningless. That is like saying, between ground chuck and celery, celery is sweeter. Doesn't mean that celery is chocolate.
I don't even really understand what you mean regarding the Green Party's "specific political agenda" - I find the Green Party to be much more liberal than the Democrats overall. I vote Green with some frequency but am not prepared at this time to affiliate completely with that party.
I don't see what's so hard to understand about all this...
Exactly. Liberal means that you believe it is the government's role to actively address the problems faced by the governed through taxation and the redistribution of funds through government programs. Conservative means you believe that such taxation and redistribution should be minimal, and that the government should allow market forces to address or ignore those problems. It is easy to be more liberal than the Democratic party or more conservative than the Republican party.
Still, at least now I understand why you've been spouting nonsense all afternoon.
I've read this like 20 times now and it still makes absolutely no sense.
KBH's logic assumes that everything that the democrats do is liberal and everything that the republicans do is conservative, because apparently democrat=liberal and republican=conservative.
Therefore, if someone agrees with some of each, it makes them to the right of democrats.
I do not agree with this logic, of course.
we are talking about political issues - and they exist based on party lines. if dems and republicans agree on something its not an issue. whatever definition you just plucked out of your economics book ignores what i thought was going to be, at the very least, plucked out of your politics 101 book (big govt v. small govt). regardless, its irrelevant to this discussion and the topic - which is why would anyone who says they are more liberal than the current politicians elected in the democratic party not register as a democrat? the answer still is that there is no reason because there is no such alternative, more liberal, party. the green party is not based on being "more liberal" than the democrats. look up Ralph Nader's bio and you should get the picture.
redistribution of wealth, lets just call it what it is.
you don't register as an independent if you are "more liberal" than the democratic party. there is no definition of an independent candidate, so we define it by who has run as an independent, and they are people with a mix of republican and democratic views.
people have tried to claim that they are too liberal to be a democrat, so therefore they registered as an independent. that "still makes absolutely no sense" to me.
The republicans have had no qualms about taking my money all these years. Do you guys really believe modern republicans are fiscally conservative? What a load of...
It's an issue to me if I don't agree with both parties. And this will probably surprise you, but many of us are well-educated and intelligent people who actually have a working understanding of politics without having to resort to reference books, and can elucidate that understanding. Hell, some of us even get paid to do it.
Just curious, why do you equate the Green Party with Ralph Nader? I don't believe they've chosen their 2008 candidate, and, according to this, Cynthia McKinney is in the lead. And Nader makes no reference to the Green Party on his site. It looks like he's planning to run as an independent.
Not that I'd argue for the viability of either Nader or the Green Party.
Yeah, but once your wealth gets into my hands, I spend it, making it funds. I could use some more funds, by the way. When are you getting that six-figure salary, again? I want my slice of the Saba pie.
[mylatentcy]
That's missing the point completely. As an Independent, I define my own political positions. You and your unnamed associates don't get to do it for me. And an Independent voter has no correlation to Independent candidates. I am independent of the two major political parties, the candidate is independent of the two major political parties, and the candidate and I are independent of each other.
you said you are anti gun control and for "conservative" financial reform so you don't fit into the scenario being discussed, other than to sidetrack the debate by making irrelevant comments or gratuitous comments about how you make a living educating/writing about politics - which i find hard to believe.
i'm missing what point completely? you entered yourself into the discussion, even though your own political views disqualify you from what is being discussed.
did we not get enough "me" time this week? lets hear some more about "i".
and please go on about how you get paid to think/write/talk some more.
what does anti-gun control have to do with the importance of a well-regulated militia?
I think you lost sight of the scenario a while ago. But sorry to sidetrack the argument???it was going swimmingly for you. And I did not imply that I make my living writing about politics, I implied that some members of the board do. I do, however, write about documentaries about politics on a regular basis, among other things.
Still, I will honor your wishes and return to work, which today consists of writing about classical, jazz, and Celtic music. I wish you the best of luck in converting the political heathens to whatever underlying premise you've been trying so unsuccessfully to explain.
No, you define it by who the available independent candidates are.
Some of us take it at face value, i.e., unaffiliated with either major party.
This is symptomatic of your complete inability to think outside of a two-party paradigm.
great, get that money, i appreciate hearing about all your work updates. please try to give me a silent shout out by incorporating the word "swimmingly" into your review of celtic music. that's a good look.
No sweat. I was thinking of titling the piece, "The Joan Baez Interview From Hell". Since you invented that turn of phrase, that would be the ultimate compliment, no?
Bruce Phillips is the man. Here is a story of his that I have lived my life by:
Bruce is sitting on his porch playing guitar every morning. His banker neighbor gets into his car and drives to work every morning. When he gets home at night old Utah is still sitting on the porch playing the guitar.
Banker: Why don't you get a job.
Utah: Why would I want to do that?
If you got a job you could save some money.
Why would I want to do that?
You could open a bank account and start saving for your future.
Why would I want to do that?
So you could retire.
What would I do then?
Well you could sit on your porch all day and play guitar.
Thats what I am doing now!