Why Governor Perry questions evolution

[GenSeneca]

Maybe if you were to take this little quiz, you'd have an idea about at least a two dimensional political philosophy.

What difference does it make? No matter where you find yourself on any political scale, your options are still limited to voting Republican, voting Democrat, or pissing your vote away on a party that can't win national elections.

It's a lot easier to simply divide the world into People Who Agree With me (PWAWM) and People Who Don't Agree With Me (PWDAWM) and pretend that the latter group is all the same.

Isn't that exactly what you do?

 

[PLC1]

What difference does it make? No matter where you find yourself on any political scale, your options are still limited to voting Republican, voting Democrat, or pissing your vote away on a party that can't win national elections.

Unfortunately true. However, one doesn't have to simply vote for the same party regardless of who is running.

There is a vast difference, for example, between Bachmann and Romney, both Republicans. There is less difference between Obama and Bush II.

Not all Republicans are the same. Not all Democrats are the same. I'm sure you know that.

Isn't that exactly what you do?

When have I ever made a post lumping everyone who disagrees with me under one label and pretending that they all have the same ideas?

 

[GenSeneca]

Not all Republicans are the same. Not all Democrats are the same. I'm sure you know that.

We're still basically limited to choosing between Republican or Democrat in every election. If there actually were as many viable political parties are there are political ideologies, then your complaints about a left to right spectrum would have some actual value. However, we have two parties, therefore it is a left to right decision, while it's true that some are more left/right than others, they still fall into the category of being either a Republican or a Democrat.

When have I ever made a post lumping everyone who disagrees with me under one label and pretending that they all have the same ideas?

I'm not going to bother to post actual quotes because that would take more time than its worth but such examples do exist. I know you won't take my word for it, so lets try this... You believe yourself to be a "pragmatist", what does that make the people who disagree with your opinions?

 

[ProudLefty]

What difference does it make? No matter where you find yourself on any political scale, your options are still limited to voting Republican, voting Democrat, or pissing your vote away on a party that can't win national elections.

Quigley got it right, We want two parties, and we want them to be more or less alike. This aberration with the Republicans purging their moderates and liberals is a very bad sign for America.

Why do we want two similar parties?

• So we will have two more or less equally powerful sets of scoundrels and rascals watching each other for us.
• When one group gets too powerful or too scurrilous we can vote them out without disrupting our day-to-day politics.
• So that each group of scoundrels knows that if they totally ignore us they will be sent packing.

Now, as to your concerns about minority views and sometimes having to go to a third party: Whichever major party fails at the polls will want to mend itself and be ready for the next election in two years. They will look over the third party platforms, and any ideas that voters were responding to will suddenly become a major issue for the losing party. Therefore, the good stuff bubbles up fairly quickly. Think of it this way: If there was a third party demanding that all toilets have rollover bars, and they got 11% of the popular vote in an election, you can bet that the major party that lost would soon discover that rollover bars for toilets was a great idea, that our Founding Fathers had been for rollover bars all along, and we also needed rollover bars for beds, strollers, and the Kardashians.

 

[GenSeneca]

Quigley got it right, We want two parties, and we want them to be more or less alike.

By "we" I can only presume you mean Progressives, you guys want two Progressive parties that differ in name and degree only, while agreeing on substance.

This aberration with the Republicans purging their moderates and liberals is a very bad sign for America.

Said the Progressive.

Why do we want two similar parties?

So that no matter which party gets elected, you can be assured the Progressive agenda will move forward.

[*]So we will have two more or less equally powerful sets of scoundrels and rascals watching each other for us.

Right... Let the wolves protect us hens from the other wolves, that's clucking brilliant.

[*]When one group gets too powerful or too scurrilous we can vote them out without disrupting our day-to-day politics.

And when both have become too powerful and scurrilous a Tea Party is created.

[*]So that each group of scoundrels knows that if they totally ignore us they will be sent packing.

So we keep trading bad for worse until America finally collapses, good plan.

Now, as to your concerns about minority views and sometimes having to go to a third party:

We need a major party that isn't Progressive, I'd settle for that.

 

[Openmind]

By "we" I can only presume you mean Progressives, you guys want two Progressive parties that differ in name and degree only, while agreeing on substance.


Said the Progressive.


So that no matter which party gets elected, you can be assured the Progressive agenda will move forward.


Right... Let the wolves protect us hens from the other wolves, that's clucking brilliant.


And when both have become too powerful and scurrilous a Tea Party is created.


So we keep trading bad for worse until America finally collapses, good plan.



We need a major party that isn't Progressive, I'd settle for that.

Would you be willing to recognize that the GOP today is FAR further Right than it ever was in the past, and that what you call "progressive today" would have been identified as "Right of center" under Reagan and Bush I?

 

[PLC1]

We're still basically limited to choosing between Republican or Democrat in every election. If there actually were as many viable political parties are there are political ideologies, then your complaints about a left to right spectrum would have some actual value. However, we have two parties, therefore it is a left to right decision, while it's true that some are more left/right than others, they still fall into the category of being either a Republican or a Democrat.

All that would be true, if the Republicans were all alike (right) and all the Democrats were alike (left). That is not the case, however. There are many unrelated issues, not just two camps where everyone looks the same.

You have said before that you believe in a black and white world. That is your prerogative, of course, whether or not we actually live in such a world.

I'm not going to bother to post actual quotes because that would take more time than its worth but such examples do exist. I know you won't take my word for it, so lets try this... You believe yourself to be a "pragmatist", what does that make the people who disagree with your opinions?

That depends on whether it is my pragmatism that they disagree with, my social libertarian philosophy that is the problem, my advocacy of smaller government and a balanced budget, my opinions on public education, my stated opinions on the wars, or what. Not everyone who is an ideologue (as opposed to a pragmatist) has the same opinions on other issues.

Of course you won't try to post examples of my lumping everyone who disagrees with me together under one umbrella. There are no such examples.

 

[GenSeneca]

Not everyone who is an ideologue (as opposed to a pragmatist) has the same opinions on other issues.

Of course you won't try to post examples of my lumping everyone who disagrees with me together under one umbrella. There are no such examples.

You just gave me an example... you consider everyone who isn't a pragmatist to be an ideologue... That of course ignores the FACT that pragmatism IS itself an ideology, making it's adherents ideologues as well.

 

[GenSeneca]

would you be willing to recognize that the gop today is far further right than it ever was in the past...

auh2o ftw

 

[PLC1]

You just gave me an example... you consider everyone who isn't a pragmatist to be an ideologue... That of course ignores the FACT that pragmatism IS itself an ideology, making it's adherents ideologues as well.

Only in that black and white parallel universe you inhabit.

Pragmatist to ideologue is one of the four continua, with most people somewhere in the center.

There isn't one camp who are ideologues, another who are pragmatists. The real world isn't that simple.

 

[GenSeneca]

Only in that black and white parallel universe you inhabit.

That's called reality...

Pragmatist to ideologue is one of the four continua, with most people somewhere in the center.

Pragmatism is an ideology... So at either end of that "continua", you'd have an ideologue.

 

[PLC1]

That's called reality...

Yes, alternate reality.

Pragmatism is an ideology... So at either end of that "continua", you'd have an ideologue.

Even the few who are at the extreme ends of the continuum are not all the same.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes, alternate reality.

Alternative to yours.

Even the few who are at the extreme ends of the continuum are not all the same.

You still have an ideologue at either end, which makes your "continuum" flawed.

 

[ProudLefty]

Alternative to yours.


You still have an ideologue at either end, which makes your "continuum" flawed.

Is the continuum a line or a circle? When one goes far enough in either direction does one fall off the end, or does one discover they are so far right that they are now far left, and vice versa?

 

[GenSeneca]

Is the continuum a line or a circle? When one goes far enough in either direction does one fall off the end, or does one discover they are so far right that they are now far left, and vice versa?

It's PLC's "continuum", so you'd have to ask him.