You compromise a whole lot more by losing completely. There is no prize for 2nd place.
Some may call the forming of this Republic a "rubicon"..the fall of Rome a "rubicon". The Clinton era, a "rubicon". Is there no issue that you wouldn't "draw that proverbial line in the sand" on?
FDR and JBJ were far closer to a Rubicon than Clinton.
Clinton created a temporary political climate that is already greatly dispersing. The previous two created much more dramatic and destructive social policies. I'm not saying I'm a fan of Clinton at all. I'm not. But his imprint on society was almost completely one of personality cult, not extreme governmental changes. His mark will quickly fade away. Of course if China or North Korea nukes us then I might be wrong about the Clinton Rubicon...
The fall of Rome was indeed a Rubicon for the Romans.
But aside from something that final, what I mean to say is that as society changes and accepts new circumstances, what seemed as a dire situation at the time deflates, and society continues on.
although I believe you are more Democrat...in your speech and thought..than Republican..
Funny, I don't feel like a Democrat...
not by voting/promoting people such as Arnold.
The anti-Arnold hyperbole has gotten pretty thick. He is not evil incarnate. The truth is that Mr. Schwarzenegger is a fine upstanding citizen and an ispirational success story for all. Like everyone else, he is human and flawed and has made mistakes. Surely you could appreciate that.
You know you have this type of "Talk" down..and it's awfully close to, and resembles the Dems in the halls of Congress preaching "Bipartisanship..!!" If I said it before...and I'll say it again...you are using the very tactics of the left...
Nonsense. When the Republicans were the minority they preached "bipartisanship", and the Democrats were staunchly ideological.
When you are up, you don't compromise.
When you are down, bipartisanship is your best chance.
We are clearly down in California. It's either compromise on Arnold, or no win at all.
Well...okay. Anarchist never entered my mind....although many socialist's have anarchists hearts. lol!!
Yes, that is true, but those are the angry youth who just wear politics as fashion and don't understand what Socialism really is. I know them well, they are my peers.
Libertarians are the anarchists at heart.
Unfortunately...you may be correct on your mainstream views....Although I'm suspect of the "data" I've seen to quantify this.
I'm not going on "data" or studies. I am going on what I see all around me in society every single day. Everytime I turn on the TV, everytime I leave the house. I tend to be to the right of most of it, even.
BTW...I was once not unlike you in my spiritual trek.....I'm living proof..people can change their minds, and change their hearts.
Well, I don't know what your background is, but I was not brought up religious. There has never been such an influence in my life. A lot of people who were raised religious in their early youth return to it when they get older. That is not an option for me.
Maybe I'm not as a "complete" thinker..as yourself. Or like you said...maybe it's my approach.
What I mean by that is that I look at religion from a detatched academic view. I feel fairly confident in assuming that you look at it from a personal dogmatic view. That is the surest way to clash.
that you like many...have some agenda's
Of course I have agendas.
My #1 agenda is defeating Democrats.
My #2 agenda is widening the mainstream appeal of the Republican party.
The combined effect of agenda #1 and agenda #2 will achieve my grand agenda of destroying the Democratic party which will disenfranchise the dirty hippy Marxist peace-marchers that I have so much contempt for.
I also have an agenda of seeing the Establishment Clause restored.
Well....if I said "I love Jeshua" to most Americans..they would say "What the heck are you saying"? Or ask me if that was my wife's name..??? Ha!! So..here in American we commonly speak in the "common" language...And God is generally referred to as...er well, God.
Well, to my understanding Jeshua is most commonly the name of Jesus in the Shanti Christo cult. Whether or not it is broader than that is of relativly no consequence, since it is still definately specific to narrow sects.
When I speak of YHWH, that is of course what has come to be mispronounced "Yaweh" or "Jehova". It is properly pronounced as "Yod-heh-vav-heh", with a mantric sort of rhythm. This isn't a "common tongue" matter.
References to "God" are, as you point out, always exclusively referencing said god, the God of Abraham.
That is why Congressional endorsements of "God" in the Pledge and on the currency are violations of the 1st Amendment.
I've done alot of the same mental gymnastics that you have done, attempted, completed, etc..etc..etc..
It's not a matter of doing mental gynastics. It is in fact quite the opposite. It is simply a matter of not allowing my emotional responses to bias my logical conclusions.
If we allow our own personal convictions govern, then you wind up with a judicially schizophrenic society, rather than one that protects and represents all people equally - which is what the Constitution intended.
And it looks like the former is what we've got right now.
"You compromise a whole lot more by losing completely. There is no prize for 2nd place."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I disagree completely. Besides you don't even follow your very own advice. You totally sat out the Simon vs. Gray election....Your argument is nearly toothless.
FDR and JBJ were far closer to a Rubicon than Clinton. Clinton created a temporary political climate that is already greatly dispersing. The previous two created much more dramatic and destructive social policies. I'm not saying I'm a fan of Clinton at all. I'm not. But his imprint on society was almost completely one of personality cult, not extreme governmental changes. His mark will quickly fade away. Of course if China or North Korea nukes us then I might be wrong about the Clinton Rubicon...
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I agree with your mention of FDR...he is continually held up as a American icon....IMO mistakenly. For intentionally or not he did more than most.... to propel America down the socialist's road.
You forgot my question. "Is there no issue where you wouldn't draw that proverbial line in the sand."?
Not sure that the Clinton era...wasn't THE "Rubicon". Of course it's too early to tell....the geopolitical/social/economic/ damage. IMO...this cannot be gauged as of yet. It may be years before the ramifications are truly known. The depths of the Clinton's deceit and treason haven't seen the light as of day..IMO. And alas we may never know...
The fall of Rome was indeed a Rubicon for the Romans. But aside from something that final, what I mean to say is that as society changes and accepts new circumstances, what seemed as a dire situation at the time deflates, and society continues on.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Maybe so....although many times those "dire situtations" are very real and result in very unwanted sequelae. You don't just keep unraveling the threads of a bolt of cloth without damage to it's overall integrity.
"Funny, I don't feel like a Democrat...
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Your dialect and debate style at times very much swerves to port....But hey, I've been wrong enough times...to admit that I might be wrong again.
"The anti-Arnold hyperbole has gotten pretty thick. He is not evil incarnate. The truth is that Mr. Schwarzenegger is a fine upstanding citizen and an ispirational success story for all. Like everyone else, he is human and flawed and has made mistakes. Surely you could appreciate that."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Never said he was "evil incarnate". And I certainly do not believe that. Inspirational? Yes. Fine up-standing citizen? Quite possibly....Human, flawed, mistakes..? Yes. And I certainly can appreciate that....no questions there.
But like you being "unmoved" by Simon....I've got big questions about Arnold. Surely you...can appreciate that. Can't you?
Nonsense. When the Republicans were the minority they preached "bipartisanship", and the Democrats were staunchly ideological.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Twasn't nonsense. Go back and read what you wrote. Go back and run a Lexus Nexus on the words bipartisan, & bipartisanship during a Demo majority and a Repub congress. If the Repub's "preached" it...the Demos "screamed" it..and got maximal "play"
When you are up, you don't compromise.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I wish you would tell that to the present Congress.....
When you are down, bipartisanship is your best chance. We are clearly down in California. It's either compromise on Arnold, or no win at all.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So..wait a dang minute...aren't you the guy who sat out the "real" election...because you wouldn't COMPROMISE? That dog won't hunt. Sorry.
Yes, that is true, but those are the angry youth who just wear politics as fashion and don't understand what Socialism really is. I know them well, they are my peers. Libertarians are the anarchists at heart.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
And you lean Libertarian, correct? Clarify that for me...because I thought you said you just to the right of Libertarians??? Or am I mistaken...I'm being lazy here..and not reviewing.
I'm not going on "data" or studies. I am going on what I see all around me in society every single day. Everytime I turn on the TV, everytime I leave the house. I tend to be to the right of most of it, even.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Anecdotal evidence....then. Okay, now I understand. Although I believe that is skewed evidence...I would certainly HOPE that you would be to the "right" of it.... Although I can appreciate the pressures and nuances of your current "peer" grouping. Very hard to be a salmon swimming upstream.
Well, I don't know what your background is, but I was not brought up religious. There has never been such an influence in my life. A lot of people who were raised religious in their early youth return to it when they get older. That is not an option for me.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Church on Christmas and Easter...when I was young..maybe a total of 5-9 times...that I remember. Basically had zero organized religion. And by golly that was a blessing..... I hadn't any preconceived notions...or false teachings
What I mean by that is that I look at religion from a detatched academic view. I feel fairly confident in assuming that you look at it from a personal dogmatic view. That is the surest way to clash.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I did that detached view also.....and from a evidence based scientific geological and historical perspective...I couldn't disprove 99% of the bible. Personal dogma...had little to play in it. I'm very comfortable in my "skin" I've no reason to clash with you.....I would say that I'm a pretty peculiar individual...in relation to my faith.....and how I manifest that faith.
Sorry...I ran out of time...I will address the rest of your post when I have time....
FRegards,