| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2002 : 14:42:36
|
Gale and Mark: You make my point precisely. That is why this thread is not only senseless but silly as well.
Some here wouldn't know the meaning of a real 'debate' if it fell from the sky and hit them over the head.
I spent 4 years in formal collegiate debate and believe me, what you are hearing and see here is not even close to what is considered real 'debating'.
Let them have their fun though, but it would be more intellectually honest if they relabeled this thread The Russ Limbaugh Admiration & Fan Society or Lacerative Liberal Bashing 101.
Better still, how about instead of using political obfuscation and vituperative smoke screen personal attacks on this thread, having a serious discussion of addressing the real problems which demand real solutions in our country. Problems and solutions which both the Republicans AND Democrats have not and will not address because the solutions aren't what people (voters) really want to hear.
Will Rogers was correct when he said Americans have the best government money can buy. And folks let's face it: they're all up for sale and to the highest bidder.
As I said earlier, have your fun. Just don't confuse what you're saying here with real "debate". Nothing could be further from the truth. |
 |
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 15:36:01
|
Well Jim... you seem as set in your opinions as I. I too participated in debate from high school through college and in no way tried to present this as a formal debate situation. This is just a place to share my ideas and let others do the same - that's why the Forum topic is "Anything Goes."
You say many true things in your post. The 2 major parties are often unwilling to deal with the real issues and instead appease the masses with the "cherry on top." I am unwilling to accept this as standard practice. That is why I vote, write my politicians, and speak up about what is happening in politics today and where I think the future of this country is headed.
You bring up a good point, that an issues based discussion would be more beneficial. Which issue would you like to tackle first? I have already brought up a couple and would suggest we talk about the "war on drugs." Some of my position on this matter I have already posted. Is there anyone out there who finds this 'war' to be one that we as a country are winning? That we can win? That we should try to win?
Jim... what are you thoughts?
Jennifer
|
|
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 17:35:29
|
Dirt, BOTH sides have FACTS, a good debate will reveal which side has the CORRECT facts. Jim, I get the feeling that you get uncomftorable when ever someone starts to expose liberals for what they really are and what they stand for. Come on Jennifer, why nibble around the edges with a debate about the war on drugs, why not get down to the meat of the differences between conservatives and liberals.
ALSO, have any of you noticed whenever Rush Limbaugh's name is mentioned that liberals immediately start throwing around wild accusations?
|
Edited by - Justin on 12/02/2002 17:39:01 |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 17:49:01
|
| Justin you need some definations 1st a liberal is NOT A SOCIALIST, nice try Rush Now a conservative is someone who knows that his ideas are correct, while a liberal is someone who can take an idea from the right and use it when needed and can take an idea from the left and use it when needed. A good example is in our neightbours Canada where the National Governing Party or Liberals have staying in power by stealing the best ideas from the right and the left. ps they actually have a socialist party called the New Democrates. And there major right wing party is a currently a collection of extreme right groups that briefly names themselve the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party or CCRAP. Maybe what we need to to break of a more extreme left wing party so tha twe could have a party of the political middle, one that would serve the general population not just special interest groups. Jim isn't it amazing every time you try to debate a conservative, they say they are exposing liberals for what they are then if they continue the mud and inuendos fly. |
|
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 18:02:10
|
Alas Dirt, as poor Benjamin Franklin said; "They that won't be counselled can't be helped."
|
Edited by - Justin on 12/02/2002 18:16:18 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 18:15:13
|
For those who are students and readers of history as well as political evolution, one understands that before one could possibly label themselves a 'liberal' (whatever that label means to any one speaker or listener) or a 'conservative' (again, whatever that label means to the speaker or listener), they would first have to understand and label themselves first a Hobbesian or Lockian, as all political beliefs flow from the philosophies of either Hobbes or Locke (whether you know it or not).
A political belief or principle based on a 'conservative' point of view might well be more appropriately labeled a 'liberal' point of view in a different political or cultural environment.
It matters not to me whether one resorts to childish ad hominum attacks when one encounters points of view which are zenophobically different from one's own. That reflects a lack of understanding not of the principles of others, but more prevalently, a lack of foundation and understanding of one's own.
So first I am a Hobbesian and secondly I am a LIBERAL (MY definition NOT yours). In some political settings I might well be labeled conservative and in others quite liberal.
If you want to have a real meaningful discussion, then throw away the labels, the cliches, the icons and tell us what YOU rea and how you arrived at that basic politial philosophy.
But please. Don't insult those educated informed minds here who rely on more than Rush Limbaugh and/or talk radio to educate and inform us of the real intellectually honest FACTS.
Rush and his ilk are all about entertainment and have very little to offer in the way of political enlightenment.
One or two of the posters here, no doubt were, in another life, gleefully pulling the release chains for the guillotine during the Thermidorean cycle of the French Revolution. That was their respone to the liberal philosophies then and no doubt: given the chance, their self same response to liberals now.
Trained accomplished debaters understand that the first rule of debate is to be able to debate either side of any proposition with equal knowledge and ardor.
So Jennifer, as a debater of some background, experience and training, why don't you lay out your proposition for research and 'debate'?
I don't recall everything nor all the 'rules' from college debate, but propositions always started with: "Resolved,...(Proposition)" |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 18:40:44
|
Memo to Justin:
Your quote: "Dirt, BOTH sides have FACTS, a good debate will reveal which side has the CORRECT facts" is insanely ridiculous by definition.
Facts are true and actual by definition. If both sides present facts, then the facts of one side or position have no more claim to being correct or genuine or actual than the other set of facts presented.
When Harvard's debate team debates the Yale or Oxford's talented debate team you can bet your last dollar that both debate teams have researched and verified their facts. Debates are not won or lost simply on facts, but on application, applicability, articulation, presentation, logic and rebuttal of all facts presented, just to mention a few.
That concept of 'facts' might well work in an argument with a bunch of redneck high school drop-outs down on the barber shop, but it doesn't hold water, and would be laughable in any academic environment much beyond the 8th grade.
I would suggest you and Kile check your dictionary to learn the factual definition and concept of "FACTS" before you starting boasting of the absolute and exclusive validity of yours, and dismissing those of others as irrelevant or unimportant.
Minds uninformed and refractory are a terrible thing to waste.
That's why they call higher education LIBERAL ARTS. But you undoubtedly already knew that. |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 18:53:23
|
| Jim thanks for the reminder of what debating is all about because through the years I had forgotten how you could be assigned both the subject of the debate and which side you had to debate with only a few minutes to prepare. Perhaps with age it is easy to focus on dogma instead of being open minded by nature. A person that is not willing to change his mind on at least one issue has a lot in common with the dead. Labels are nice because they no longer require a person to think or evaluate. :) |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 19:59:17
|
Well, now we get down to the real stuff. I am a follower of John Locke and a believer in Natural Law.
That out of the way, I'd just like to say that I just love the way people who are opposed to Rush Limbaugh, most of whom have never even listened to him, automaticaly believe that those of us who do listen to him and enjoy his show hang on his every word and pattern our lives after him. I'm not a rabbid follower of his but I do enjoy his show. I never meant to be a Limbaugh defender I was just using him as a resource. Have you ever thought that maybe you're putting the cart before the horse? The reason that most of us listen to him is because we like to hear the other side of the story. We like to get a view that isn't closer to the Kremlin than it is to Washington. Like it or not, for the most part the media slants heavily to the left. Maybe 20 million people tune into his show because they have come to the conclusion that Democrats and Liberals are BAD for this country and given the chance will lead us into oblivion. I really feel this way. I think Democrats are for the most part bad for the country. I'm not saying that Republicans have all the answers because they don't and they are wrong on many issues. But to me it's like being asked to choose between cancer or a head cold. I'll take the head cold any day.
When I speak of liberals I speak of the kind of people who hate the military, who believe that it is bad to have a Christmas concert in school, people who believe that students in US universities shouldn't display American flags in their dorm room windows because it may offend students from other countries. These are the people I believe are destroying this country. These people who believe that we should provide muslim prayer rooms in public schools but think if a football team or a graduating class wishes to say a non-denominational invocation it's time to call the ACLU. These are the people that I refer to when I use the word liberal.
Jim, I don't need a dictionary to tell me what the word "fact" means. I also don't need a dictionary to tell me what the meaning of the word "is" is. And in case you haven't figured it out yet I think Bill and Hillary and Al Gore and Tom Daschle are trying to destroy this country and given the chance they will.
You asked me to explain how I came to believe in my political philosophy. It's quite simple. I believe in good old american individualism. I believe that I should be able to do what I want to do without other people sticking their nose into my business. I believe that the money that I earn should be mine and if you don't work, you shouldn't eat. I believe that welfare is bad and creates and entire group of people who would rather get a check than earn a check. I believe if you want to come to this country and get a job you should learn to speak English and not expect free health care and food stamps to keep you alive. I believe that no one has the right to take my money and give it to someone else. I belive that no one has the right to tell me what kind of car to drive or what I can do on my land. I believe I should be able to watch what I want on TV and read what I want to read. I don't believe it takes a village to raise a child, it takes parents to raise a child. I believe that western culture, particularly U.S. culture is superior to every other culture in the world and If you don't like it you should go and live in the culture you love so much and not try to make me live in yours. I don't believe in political correctness and I think it is as evil and destructive as facism and communism combined. I believe that the framers of the constitution intended for me to have the right to own a gun so I cold defend myself, my family and my property. I believe that capitalism is the natural state of mankind and it is the best economic system on earth. These are just a few of the reasons that I feel the way I do, but I'm sure they are enough for now.
Please don't take anything personaly. If you disagree I can respect that and I'd love to hear why, believe it or not I have changed my mind in the past, but not because people have labled me a facist or compared me to the guy pulling the rope on a guillotine.
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 20:40:56
|
Kile from the vented diatribe you have espoused in your most recent post, as well your own description of your political philosopy clear to most founded on anger, it seems reasonable that a panel of distinguished political scholars/Chairmen of the top 10 political science departments in American universities would more appropriately place your esposed viewpoint in the category of anarchist rather than conservative.
Doubting your understanding and foundation of what Locke said rather than what you have been told he said, you clearly fail beyond any cursory understanding and comprehension of the depth of Locke's philosophy and it's implications to political theory and evolution.
One must remember that even Clinton wasn't always right nor was he always wrong. Even the most basic of research would prove to most reasonable and prudent people, that ironically conservatives of the most extreme viewpoint in Congress did at times vote in step with Clinton intiatives while Democrats in Congress of the most liberal vent do at times vote in step with the views of Bush.
In truth, your viewpoint on any one issue might well be considered a liberal political position and in another venue considered Libertarian or Fascist or Socialist. The same holds true for any of the rest of us as well. As Gale has said, labels are a convenient method of avoiding evaulation and examination.
Whenever someone tells me they are a political 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'libertarian' my first question is always "tell me what that means" and my second question is "tell me upon what political basis you have arrived at that philosophy. To do less or be unwilling or unable to ask or answer those questions leads to the conclusion that the dogma of the individual is either transparent, lacking in foundation or lacking in principle.
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 20:46:24
|
Kile, as an aside, without your being able to conveniently use your tired old cliches and quick 'labels ad hominum' you couldn't win a real and reasoned 'debate' with a warthog.
Throw away your angry vituperative labels and then, and only then, will educated informed listeners of oppositional viewpoints engage in reasoned didactic dialogue and 'debate'. |
|
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 21:00:57
|
Hey Flint, what horsecrap. What is with the "vented diatribe", "clearly founded on anger". Just what did Kile say that set you off BESIDES the truth. Personally, I would be honored to be found wanting by "a panel of distinguished political scholars/Chairmen of the top 10 political science departments in American universities". Most learned scholars are a large part of the problem, not someone to look to for the solution.
Your inference that Kile's statement is "your esposed viewpoint in the category of anarchist rather than conservative" Shows just how out of touch with reality you really are.
I would appreciate you pointing out WHAT PART OF KILES STATEMENT IS ANARCHIST and offends you. Come on Jim, I know you can do better than that.
Jim, you seem to be more adept at pontification than putting forth some real answers. How about telling us what YOU stand for, Kile sure told us what HE stands for.
Justin
PS tantaene animis caelestibus irae
|
Edited by - Justin on 12/02/2002 21:05:01 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 21:31:55
|
Justin you have already proven in earlier posts that you can't even get the 'facts' right. Your angered response reinforces your previous failing.
And your last post proves what I have been saying all along: you and Kile and Rush attack any individual not in quick step with your own extreme viewpoints because you don't possess the knowledge, tools, logic or reason to reasonably dissect or dissuade the positions of others counter to your own.
I stand by my prediction that the political viewpoint as described by Kile would be categorized as anarchist in nature by definition. But then again, definitions aren't something you are familiar with anyway nor place value upon (unless they reinforce your distorted thinking).
Why in hell would I or any other educated thinking man rely on a man (Rush Limbaugh) who only graduated from high school and did not matriculate from any college nor has any recognized credentials or curriculum vitae of academic study in political science, government studies, or public administration? Rush Limbuagh is all about entertainment and has spent his life in broadcasting not politics.
Rush makes a lot of money doing it and is to be applauded for his working scheme to remove vast sums of money from the wallets of those who want their political education via the fast food method of talk radio and his internet website ($39.00 a year for those with more money than sense) rather than the cognitively recognized methods of reading, research, and analytical thinking.
You're right about one thing though, I take pride in that I have never spent 15 minutes in my life listening to Rush Limbaugh (why would anyone other than for 'entertainment purposes' for reasons outlined in the previous paragraph?), but I have spent 4 years in college and additional time in grad school political classes reading the recognized political literature (Hobbes, Locke, von Clauswitz, Machiavelli, Jefferson, etc.) as well as a couple of early years working in the NC Legislature and for a US Senator.
I don't need Rush Limbaugh when I can read the Journal of American Politics, Journal of Foreign Affairs, New York Times and Wshington Post; and sup and break bread on a fairly regular basis with the current or former political science department Chairmen from such noted American universities as Duke, Emory, UNC as well as several smaller less well known.
So yes, I have done my research and I do have my 'facts' right without having to return to kindergarten in order learn the basic fact of what facts are.
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 21:39:01
|
| Justin's postscript, "Tantaene animis caelestibus irae" (for those who don't read Latin) means "can such anger dwell in heavenly minds". |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 21:52:55
|
"Debating" seems to be about so much more than I formerly realized. I had thought, in the absence of scholastic definitions, that it was along the lines of a formal discussion. If we were to subscribe to Gale's thoughts of debate, or one's inherent value placed on the exercise, not much would get accomplished in life. I talk to myself enough as it is, I would go quite mute if I spoke just to hear myself. Whereas Kile, in my opinion has a 50/50 type address to the issue of debate, but (respectfully Kile) that statement is short of a solution; ".... debating is about who has the facts ....", is certainly true and part of the process and Jenn has presented herself well in that regard. However, ".... and who's opinions are based solely on feelings ...." creates a bad mix of information most times; and hence the conflict I see in that sentence of Kile's. ".... the facts always win ....", is only true when they are properly presented or popular to the audience at hand.
I had followed this thread with moderate interest to late last night. I was going to comment earlier today - with my other thoughts - on how civilized it had been given the flammable subject matter. I have watched and listened to the "big Rush" often enough, primarily as an admirer of his speaking and presentation skills and secondly that I seem to be able to relate to some of the subject matter. However, sadly today and through to my last look at 8.46 PM, there has been six strikes of a flint causing the flammable matter to erupt. I must echo Justin's second last (english) sentence.
Too bad, Jenn's offer of the "war on drugs" seems too clinical now; but it is affecting us all pretty directly and will consume us more in this current decade. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Partisan Politics
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
