| Author |
 Topic  |
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2002 : 22:03:07
|
| Kile you talked about your rights, do others have rights? If they do and those rights put them in conflict with you how is this resolved. Now a law to protect someone elses right might deprive you of what you preceive as a right, unless of course you write the laws. Or, in true individualist fashion you resolve that matter with your constitutional right. I have trouble with a world were only the strong survive. If it wasn't for so called liberal ideas we'd still have company stores indentured servants and children working in mines. For a balanced society we need both liberals and conservatives, extremes are doomed to failure. |
 |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 22:28:22
|
Jim, I never wanted this to be a debate about Rush. This is the last time I will even mention his name because everyone seems to fixate on that and nothing else. I do find it very funny though that you admit you don't even listen to him yet you dismiss him out of hand. Who is prejudging whom here? I also find it very condecending of you, Jim, to look down upon Rush because he did not graduate from a formal institute of higher learning. Do you mean to insinuate that those who have not had the advantage of higher education have nothing to contribute to political discourse? Perhaps we should implement a literacy test in order to qualify to vote? Does my education from Louisiana State University not rate, it is afterall a public school.
I would also like to point out that I read a great deal myself. A look at my bookshelf right now shows that in he past 6 months I've read Slander by Ann Coulter which I found to be nothing but Ann demonstrating her Harvard vocabulary even though she had a few good points, Shakedown, Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson by Kenneth Timmerman, The Agenda by Bob Woodward, David Brinkley by David Brinkley, Fat Man in a Middle Seat by Jack Germond, Bias by Bernard Goldberg, The Things That Matter Most by Cal Thomas, Who Killed CBS by Peter Boyer, A Reporter's Life by Walter Cronkite and of course the various periodicals around the house, The Weekly Standard, National Review and Sports Illustrated to name a few. I know most of this reading material leans to the right but that is what I enjoy reading but you do notice that some of it is also from the left of center because I like to see what's going on from that perspective as well. I've read Marx on Economics and Plato's Republic. I do know a great Deal about John Locke and Natural law. I once wrote a paper on the subject and I got an A.
As far as my beliefs being akin to Anarchy, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm quite a supporter of law and order. I'm a veteran and I'm very proud of my military service. No where did I say I think we have no need for government. I believe that government should protect our borders (which it is not doing), pave the streets and provide basic education (not indoctrination as is being done in public schools today) and an honest and straight forward legal system for resolution of grievances (loser pays would be a good start). Unfortunately the government we have today looks nothing like that or what I believe the founding fathers had in mind, and most of the problem, from where I'm sitting falls in the laps of the people who created the welfare state and an activist judiciary, most of whom happen to be from the left.
I stand by my previous statement, the facts always win. The truth is the truth no matter what audience it is being presented to. Truth is not relative. Also Jim, I and most other's who consider themselves conservative do not attack those we do not agree with, we attack their ideas and their assumptions, but we do not attack them personally. The politics of personal destruction is an invention of and the weapon of choice of the left.
This is what I love about the net.
|
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 22:32:17
|
| Well, Mark, tell me who was better off, those who owed their soul to the company store, or the entire dependant class we have created who have nothing to look forward to except that measly government check, some food stamps and filthy government housing? At least that kid working in the mine was learning a skill and how to work. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 22:33:47
|
Clayton, I have read your post and appreciate your reasoned and analytical approach in your presentation.
Perhaps you can share with us how 'politics' and 'political labels' differ or are similar in our great Canadian neighbor-state?
For those who cannot see what it is I am saying or at least trying to say here, is simply this: labels are meaningless except to the great unthinking. I really have no anger toward Russ, or Justin or Kile or conservatism or any other political persuasion.
I am at heart a political 'junkie' with close personal friends of most every political party and stripe (yes including some who aptly would be labeled Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and yes, even Anarchists). I find much more to laugh about when I encounter ill informed opinions or those who are ignorant of their own ignorance.
Otherwise, this is a forum for adjusting, and not appropriate for my painting for the world my political views. (Given what has already been seen here, why with any level of sanity would any adjuster want to label themselves or their political views when a claims manager for a vendor or carrier with a different point of view might well be listening (reading) and 'taking names' of those adjusters with viewpoints contrapunctal to his own? It not only isn't appropriate to do so, it just doesn't make good business sense when you stop and think about it.
If you want my personal political views then call me up and we will go drink a beer. That is a much more appropriate forum for the display of our personal beliefs. There is an old rule (in the South at least) which says that one does not discuss politics, sex or religion in polite company, and I am not about to make an exception now.
Clayton, I am not clear on your implied request which you noted as follows: "I must echo Justin's second last (english) sentence" perhaps you can more clearly explain your request. I'll be sensitive to clarification which does not get into inappropriate personal information which violates my principles of proper business practices of survival, as outlined above. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 22:50:33
|
On a lighter note, where is that great Populist, Guv'ner Ghostbuster, on this night of vigorous rancorous debate? This kind of CADO clubhouse palavering knock down drag out brawl is right up his alley.
Perhaps Ghost is out surveying the political landscape and considering throwing his hat in the ring as a candidate for Insurance Commissioner down in the Lone Star State? |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 22:59:14
|
| I'm not worried Jim, and I don't think I would want to work for someone so petty as to deny a man work because of his political opinions. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 23:07:38
|
So Kile can we both agree with your recent statement that anyone who would deny a man work with his entity because of their political opinions is petty?
Since your esteemed President, George Bush would and DOES deny hiring otherwise qualified personnel who just happen to hold liberal opinions from work in the White House and Federal Government or appointment to Federal judgeships, can we thus also agree that George Bush also qualifies under your own espoused definition above, to be labeled as being rather petty?
You can't have it both ways when you make statements such as you espoused without the burden of having it come back and bite you on the butt. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 23:19:55
|
Well, Jim, first of all i was speaking in the context of the insurance industry, but I don't intend that to mean that I think other industries should discriminate on the basis of political affiliation.
Your comparison to GW is not relevant because he happens to be in politics and therefore would tend to consider politics when making hiring decisions. I wouldn't hire a plumber to fix my computer any more than I would hire a Cardiologist to fix my car. All things in context, sir.
Would you like to know what the meaning of "is" is? |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 23:37:43
|
No Kile, I don't need to know what the meaning of 'is' is but I do question why you would pose such an irrelevant question in the 'context' of either your post about those who would deny work to those of oppostional opinions, or my response, when the meaning of 'is' was never at question. In debate, your resort to such a question ("do you want to know what the meaning of 'is' is?") is not germane to the question at hand, and is an old debate trick of using a 'red herring' argument to direct the discussion away from topic when your side is losing.
My question was contextural and had nothing to do with plumbers or cardiologists.
The question I posed, with further contextural magnification, was assuming two lawyers (both highly qualified) applied for the same position in the Federal government for an opening as a lawyer let's say, (and one, the liberal was vastly superior by any measurable standard, to the other candidate, a conservative) and the employment practices of George Bush denied the superior hire work, wasn't that an admission of pettiness on the part of George Bush and the Bush policy by your own definition?
And please don't respond by insulting us with more red herrings or ad hominums transparent to conservatives as well as liberals among us, in your attempt to defray an intellectually honest answer. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 23:47:39
|
Jim, that was meant to be a joke. Those on the left tend to suffer from the lack of a sense of humor. And by the way, I am winning the debate, I'm the only one with any facts and who makes any sense.
My answer was perfectly correct. Why would a politician hire someone who has differing political views. A lawyer in the executive branch would most probably have some form of input in setting policy and enforcing the law. It would make no sense at all for a conservative to hire a liberal. A liberal lawyer can not be as equally or better qualified as a conservative lawyer(not that there are many) in a conservative administration. If you were the manager of a baseball team, would you hire Brett Favre to be your pitcher? He throws a ball, it's the same thing isn't it? ( that was a joke by the way for the humor impaired). |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 00:02:44
|
Kile you're really in the wrong business. You really ought to open a restaurant specializing in red herring dishes. You would never run out.
Memo to Gale: The 2nd rule of collegiate debate we learned was never to debate an idiot, as you can never win.
Kile I concede any reasoned debate with you.
Thanks for a few laughs and some humorous entertainment. I'm off to bed.
I'll let you felllers get back to your liberal lynching or whatever it is you call it. Just don't try to convince any other high school or college debate coach or the rest of us that your search for and presentation of 'facts' even begins to approach the standards of 'debate' except perhaps in a cowboy bar or some red neck barber shop. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 00:10:26
|
Jim, I am appauled that a man of your education and stature would stoop to calling someone of much greater intellect that yourself an idiot.
I won the debate by pointing out the falacy of your premise which was essentially the old apple and oranges problem. Your scenario did not in any way pertain to what I was talking to. Something that your buddy Bill Clinton and his ilk were good at doing.
Good night Mr. Flynt. I'd be willing to let the audience decide the winner. I'm confident it is the person who didn't stoop to name calling like a typical liberal. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 00:12:38
|
| I would like to point out that Jim's masterful use of the "Red Herring" defence was in itself the "Red Herring" since he had no answer to brilliant argument. Well done Mr. Flynt, so subtle I almost missed it. Bravo. |
Edited by - KileAnderson on 12/03/2002 00:13:16 |
|
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 00:13:18
|
| A verrrry standard exit for a liberal. Anyone notice that he never did say what HE stands for, only tries to belittle his "debating partner's" ideas. Sorry Jim, the only intellectually honest answers here tonight were offered by Kile, who WON hands down. You still have time to tell us what YOU really STAND FOR, Kile did. You can now go to bed, feeling smug and secure with the knowledge that you really told off those rednecks from a cowboy bar or barber shop, say it again to yourself Jim, BOY AM I GREAT! |
Edited by - Justin on 12/03/2002 00:20:38 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 00:34:02
|
Memo to Kile and Justin: Since you fellers are so full of it and yourself, why don't you print out this entire thread and take it to three recognized major college debate coaches/teachers and let them score the 'debate' by recognized debate rules and standards to see who 'won'? I'll be happy to yield the expressed expostulations to that type of credentialed forum for an informed viewpoint and debate scoring. After all, we wouldn't, as Kile as said or implied by logical expansion, hire plumbers or cardiologists or adjusters to do a debate coache's job or to possess such necessary skills now would we?
Posting a recognized rule of from the real world of collegiate debate that a serious debater never debates an idiot because one can never win in such a match, merely reinforces the validity of that rule through observation of your own misguided claim to having 'won' this 'debate'. While you may or may not have won this audience approval by way of a poll, it would merely reflect entertainment value to the polled, and not a reflection of consensus by a body knowledgeable of recognized standards of debate scoring.
Enough said on my part, as I have already conceded 'winning' in any REASONED REASONABLE 'debate' with those who have boasted here of 'winning'. Their own boastful smugness reflects the reasoning behind Rule 2 of standardized collegiate debate.
Justin, if you will take the time to read carefully what I posted you will see that I have no intention of posting my political views on an adjusters forum for very wise reasons which I outlined as well.
Good Evening. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Partisan Politics
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
