The end of the Conservative movement?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I believe I hold a balanced view. We need gov't. I am willing to forgo 'some' of my 'right' views for the sake of agreement and a general centrist stance.

I wasn't talking about your view being balanced or not.

Actually, I was poking a bit of fun at you being overly dramatic.

I don't know who you are or how much political power you have but if you are not the 550 or so people who actually shape political policy then, whether you stick to your views or forgo them won't make a difference.

There have always been people who stick to them and and they usually end up complaining about what is actually put into effect by those who's opinion actually matters.

a reply to: daskakik


Oh, I get it. I have zero political power. I do believe that a grass-roots centralist movement would cause more than a bit of trouble for those you refer to....


Perhaps dramatic,yet, a clear delineation between the extremist view that Gov't is the solution to our ills, and it IS extremist in my view of it, requires a firm response. Any potential for a centrist power base will only occur after many nasty fights.

Yes, I will be right leaning in that centrist view and there will always be that internal debate, but having said that, I will continue to hold the extreme from both ends as indoctrinated, myopic and/or laden with personal
vested interest.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Oh, I get it. I have zero political power. I do believe that a grass-roots centralist movement would cause more than a bit of trouble for those you refer to....

Depends on what you consider trouble.

Perhaps dramatic,yet, a clear delineation between the extremist view that Gov't is the solution to our ills, and it IS extremist in my view of it, requires a firm response. Any potential for a centrist power base will only occur after many nasty fights.

But not necessarily with Aazadan.

Yes, I will be right leaning in that centrist view and there will always be that internal debate, but having said that, I will continue to hold the extreme from both ends as indoctrinated, myopic and/or laden with personal
vested interest.

So.

a reply to: daskakik

That's it??

I don't have any problem having political adversaries, at all. Quite natural, actually.

Aazadan? Nothing personal, at all.

a reply to: daskakik

double post....slow, old PC.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
That's it??

Well my point all along is that you are not really going to change anything so until you do, yes, that is pretty much it.

I don't have any problem having political adversaries, at all. Quite natural, actually.

Aazadan? Nothing personal, at all.

Just thought it sounded funny. Like if someone doesn't agree with your POV you are going to take your ball and go home and claim them your enemy until the end of times, times infinity, plus one.

a reply to: daskakik


Adversary means what it means. I would contest those views
. Nothing unusual in that. The rest is in your mind.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The rest is in your mind.

Never said it was anywhere else. That is what "just thought" means.

What makes it funny to me is that you talk like you are actually going to make a change if you could just get people to agree with you and if you can't then you have to fight against that.

I've been here for 6 years and no matter who fights against who and who joins in a circle jerk, nothing really changes.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I give up. I refrain from an honest, un-edited response. Unlimited power....pure bunk.

Article 1 Section 8 authorizes just about everything. It is an extremely broad section that basically translates to Congress having the jurisdiction to do anything it deems to be in the national interest.

It's rather fortunate that's how it is too, because anything the government doesn't control today is instead controlled by multinational corporations that you have no say over. You at least have some say over how Congress governs.

In your 'example' of states being in competition with each other, no oversight
would change that aspect without draconian federal power. It's not a country I'd stay in whatsoever. I assure you, other than universities and the like, Washington is NOT in competition with Oregon. California is forcing business out of State. The people of Texas-excluding yourself, apparently- love the growth in business, jobs and surplus(?).

So you're saying that oversight comparing the education standards between states, education levels achieved, quality of degrees, and applications of knowledge from those degrees wouldn't lead to those states doing better? Texas is on the verge of having all students who go to college in other states needing to take remedial science classes because their curriculum is so bad. With proper oversight, those problems don't develop. Common Core for example is an attempt at ending those problems, and it's an interstate initiative, the feds aren't involved at all. I can't say every teaching method used in CC makes sense to me (then again, I don't have a masters in education), but I know from experience that the math techniques they're teaching really are the way math should be done.

Plea bargains? Really? You spew this stuff as if your reading it from some schoolbook.

This doesn't come from a text book, it comes from me observing the system. The average public defender assigned to a case has a matter of minutes to work on it (and sometimes not even that much). In such a situation they cannot provide a legitimate defense, a plea represents the lowest average punishment, which is what they will recommend. For the prosecutor it's a guaranteed conviction with minimal time investment. For the court it prevents the overhead of finding a jury and their unpredictability. For the defender it meets their case load, and establishes them as cooperating so they can move to a better job in the future.

Less gov't, with exceptions, is the direction that will improve this lot. Certainly not the EPA or the IRS. My Gawd!!

The IRS is hands down the most important organization in the government. You may not like them, but for every dollar spent on them, they bring in $12? in revenue by catching tax cheats. Their job is to fund the government and they do it well. The responsible thing to do is to ensure they can collect the money they should be able to collect. That keeps deficits low. The other responsible thing to do, is to ensure they're not being used as a political weapon.

The EPA is nearly as important (as is the FDA). They ensure the products we buy, and the processes we use to make those products are safe.

I'm done with you. We ARE adversaries. sobeit

If you say so. I don't think of people I share a country with as adversaries when they disagree with me. People disagree with me all the time sometimes over minor things like political philosophy and sometimes major things like life decisions, if I held it against people for doing so every single person I've ever spoken to would be on my enemies list.

Which reminds me of a quote from a politician a few years ago, there's a bit of wisdom to it. "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist."

originally posted by: daskakik
I've been here for 6 years and no matter who fights against who and who joins in a circle jerk, nothing really changes.

Welcome to life, things change but change happens slowly. Having a majority of people shouting for a change is also the last step in anything happening. The first step is putting forward a well reasoned argument and presenting it to people who make decisions. Going for a public mob to support a viewpoint first, just ends in the message being distorted and any nuance in the argument being lost. For recent real world examples, see what happened to the Tea Party and OWS. They got the order mixed up, mass marketed a message to start, and ended up as groups that could do nothing more than rant against the system rather than change it.

a reply to: Aazadan


Don't misunderstand. I respect that you articulate a view and believe in it.

I hold the view that virtually any regulation, law or memo currently enacted by our various levels of gov't to be motivated by agenda, vested interest or economic cost to the gov't involved. Certainly not in the common interests.

That makes it not a '9 out of 12'. It is a fundamental difference. Hence adversary.

I see it as a Gordian knot. With the equivalent solution, as an analogy. Gov't gets bigger, one needs a bigger group to get gov't's attention and response. The individual? Relegated to an example of how 'effective' and responsive the current administration is to the individual.

You distrust state gov't, yet trust the federal gov't. I distrust them all. (They are all 'corporations' and merit the same level of trust any corporation merits.)

In an effort to find some accord, I will agree that an EPA is needed. The current version is nothing short of psychotic. Yet, one is required as the stresses placed by our market system of quarterly profits place too much temptation on corporations to violate common sense restraint. Therefore a far better articulated and restricted mandate with heavy oversight is required for the EPA.

As our Constitutional system is dead and no revision is likely to occur, the only recourse is the reduction of gov't...based on my view of the current mess.

That makes us adversaries. Not personal enemies. That won't long, however. This will break one way or the other, very, VERY soon...

originally posted by: Aazadan
They got the order mixed up, mass marketed a message to start, and ended up as groups that could do nothing more than rant against the system rather than change it.

I agree but I am talking about the backslapping and bickering that goes on here that doesn't even come close to being a movement.

I find rants usually including phrases like "Not in my house", "Not on my watch" and "over my dead body" the funniest.