AUSTRALIA - THE VOICE OF MODERATION

[Little Bird]

Do people choose their political affiliations according to the way they naturally act, or do people act the way they think their political stereotype is supposed to act?

I believe Sir Winston Churchill said it best, " If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain".

... and if you can't think for yourself by the time your 45 ? ...
my point is not directed at anyone ... I'm just observing that peeps get caught in a rut of either 'liberal' or 'conservative' ... when in fact, shouldn't ALL issues be debated on their own merit ? ... I do not consider myself either, though while living in NJ we were considered 'conservative', but by moving 437 miles to Virginia must have turned us into 'radical liberals' somehow ... I believe Donnie pointed out something earlier about the early post 9-11 days ... I think a quick pole of the country would have had us at about 97% 'conservatives' ...
The WMD thing and the invasion of Iraq ... in hind-sight ... I'm not so sure that there were not other agenda's in place ... but at the time, I was backing the administration ...

The reason that the dichotomy exists, and is so uniform from person to person, is that liberalism and conservatism proceed from very different basic assumptions about the human condition, and about the way the world works. These assumptions lead inexorably to two sets of internally consistent, and diametrically opposed, conclusions. So-called independents--those whose "on the merits" policy preferences are all over the map--simply haven't thought their positions through very well.

A quick poll of the country post 9/11 would have revealed a solid core of left-wing moonbats (more commonly known as the Democratic base) who thought the U.S. had this coming, or thought that the attack was actually orchestrated by Bush, etc., and weren't about to support ANY serious American response. And in fact, the Dems, while voting to authorize the use of force for election purposes, were working overtime to undermine Bush the entire time. They know their base very well.

As far as alternate agendas, what, pray tell, might those have been?

Interesting take Skarp, so are you saying that if someone chooses not to be classified as a liberal or conservative, that they just haven't thought about it enough?

[Skarp]

Do people choose their political affiliations according to the way they naturally act, or do people act the way they think their political stereotype is supposed to act?

I believe Sir Winston Churchill said it best, " If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain".

... and if you can't think for yourself by the time your 45 ? ...
my point is not directed at anyone ... I'm just observing that peeps get caught in a rut of either 'liberal' or 'conservative' ... when in fact, shouldn't ALL issues be debated on their own merit ? ... I do not consider myself either, though while living in NJ we were considered 'conservative', but by moving 437 miles to Virginia must have turned us into 'radical liberals' somehow ... I believe Donnie pointed out something earlier about the early post 9-11 days ... I think a quick pole of the country would have had us at about 97% 'conservatives' ...
The WMD thing and the invasion of Iraq ... in hind-sight ... I'm not so sure that there were not other agenda's in place ... but at the time, I was backing the administration ...

The reason that the dichotomy exists, and is so uniform from person to person, is that liberalism and conservatism proceed from very different basic assumptions about the human condition, and about the way the world works. These assumptions lead inexorably to two sets of internally consistent, and diametrically opposed, conclusions. So-called independents--those whose "on the merits" policy preferences are all over the map--simply haven't thought their positions through very well.

A quick poll of the country post 9/11 would have revealed a solid core of left-wing moonbats (more commonly known as the Democratic base) who thought the U.S. had this coming, or thought that the attack was actually orchestrated by Bush, etc., and weren't about to support ANY serious American response. And in fact, the Dems, while voting to authorize the use of force for election purposes, were working overtime to undermine Bush the entire time. They know their base very well.

As far as alternate agendas, what, pray tell, might those have been?

Interesting take Skarp, so are you saying that if someone chooses not to be classified as a liberal or conservative, that they just haven't thought about it enough?

No. I'm saying that if they have policy preferences that are all over the map, they are at best internally inconsistent.

[Little Bird]

Do people choose their political affiliations according to the way they naturally act, or do people act the way they think their political stereotype is supposed to act?

I believe Sir Winston Churchill said it best, " If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain".

... and if you can't think for yourself by the time your 45 ? ...
my point is not directed at anyone ... I'm just observing that peeps get caught in a rut of either 'liberal' or 'conservative' ... when in fact, shouldn't ALL issues be debated on their own merit ? ... I do not consider myself either, though while living in NJ we were considered 'conservative', but by moving 437 miles to Virginia must have turned us into 'radical liberals' somehow ... I believe Donnie pointed out something earlier about the early post 9-11 days ... I think a quick pole of the country would have had us at about 97% 'conservatives' ...
The WMD thing and the invasion of Iraq ... in hind-sight ... I'm not so sure that there were not other agenda's in place ... but at the time, I was backing the administration ...

The reason that the dichotomy exists, and is so uniform from person to person, is that liberalism and conservatism proceed from very different basic assumptions about the human condition, and about the way the world works. These assumptions lead inexorably to two sets of internally consistent, and diametrically opposed, conclusions. So-called independents--those whose "on the merits" policy preferences are all over the map--simply haven't thought their positions through very well.

A quick poll of the country post 9/11 would have revealed a solid core of left-wing moonbats (more commonly known as the Democratic base) who thought the U.S. had this coming, or thought that the attack was actually orchestrated by Bush, etc., and weren't about to support ANY serious American response. And in fact, the Dems, while voting to authorize the use of force for election purposes, were working overtime to undermine Bush the entire time. They know their base very well.

As far as alternate agendas, what, pray tell, might those have been?

Interesting take Skarp, so are you saying that if someone chooses not to be classified as a liberal or conservative, that they just haven't thought about it enough?

No. I'm saying that if they have policy preferences that are all over the map, they are at best internally inconsistent.

Ok that makes sense, but aren't we all "internally inconsistent"? Wait a minute... does that mean constipated?

[NewCoach]

When President Obama released the Top Secret memos explaining to Al Qadia how they will be treated if caught massacaring thousands of Americans, why did he redact the results of of this treatment? I am being led to believe that the Brooklyn Bridge, the Lincoln Tunnel, and the L.A. County Library Building, and all the souls within them, were saved by using these measures. Could it be that, contrary to what we are constantly told, THESE METHODS WORK? If I had to make the decision the Bush Administration did, I would only ask "Do you connect the batteries in parallel or series?"

[Joe]

When President Obama released the Top Secret memos explaining to Al Qadia how they will be treated if caught massacaring thousands of Americans, why did he redact the results of of this treatment? I am being led to believe that the Brooklyn Bridge, the Lincoln Tunnel, and the L.A. County Library Building, and all the souls within them, were saved by using these measures. Could it be that, contrary to what we are constantly told, THESE METHODS WORK? If I had to make the decision the Bush Administration did, I would only ask "Do you connect the batteries in parallel or series?"

HERE, HERE!!!


...and to which testicle

[jofus]

Don't worry boys (and girls), the Messiah is going to be the great unifier. He will reach across the aisle and clasp hands with the conservatives, and put an end to all of this partisan BS. He will look to the future, and not back towards the past. He will not bring up old differences and fights, he will not let the liberal left attempt to prosecute our government officials for doing their jobs, he will not let the liberal left cast blame on the Bush administration, even though they knew what was going on also, and agreed with it, and even though the actions in question probably saved numerous american lives.....


What? Did I miss a news story or something? Why are you looking at me funny?