Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:31 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 135 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4270
Location: Zelienople, PA
Problem is defining the "middle".

I daresay, Dwight's world of middle is today considered "right wing extremists".

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:43 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:12 am
Posts: 758
bucco boy wrote:
This is why I never really get involved with debating politics, but I will say this. All of you Conservatives and Liberals are nuts. The problem with the lot of you is not your politics as much as you see yourselves as Conservatives or Liberals before you see yourselves as Americans. That's why this country needs a third party that falls in the middle where people do see both sides.
Image


Well there is another choice

http://www.lp.org/

take the quiz... I scored a 100%

I would say the ideology is more on the conservative side but far from the Republican party.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
No. 9,

Your comparison to my calling the Left "elitist" and Wilton's unwarranted questioning of Bob's parenting skills is apples to oranges. Wilton stated something unknown about someone personally while I am stating facts based on various speeches that can be seen on TV every night by the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barak Obama.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5890
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Pirates13,
The entirety of your post makes it perfectly clear that you were taking a personal shot at certain posters who may be advocating a position with which you disagree. See below.

Piratefan13 wrote:
Reading this entire thread is a microcosim of the point that I am making. Just because you went to school for 18 years and have certificates, diplomas, and various other paperwork adorning your walls, that doesn't give you the right to decide what is best for me in life.


And, would you agree that, just because you have 51% of people agreeing with you on a particular issue, you don't have the right to decide what is better for others in their lives? And, if you don't agree with that statement and believe that - as long as a majority of people support the issue - do citizens of our country or do citizens of our states have certain inalienable rights that cannot be infringed upon by the majority? For instance, if the majority of Iowans hate U.S. citizens of Norwegian ancestry, can the Iowa legislature pass a law that forbids new home sales to U.S. citizens of Norwegian ancestry? Can Iowans vote on a proposition which gives them the right to refuse to sell solely on a person's ancestry? Can the majority of a state impose such a will upon the other 49% of the state's populace? Or, does that infringe upon the citizen's rights under the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution (equal protection under the laws and due process under the laws).

Again, I understand the concept that people don't want others intervening into their lives. We embrace the concept of "freedom." However, quite often, those same people advocating "freedom" in their lives have no problem intervening into the freedom of other's lives. To me, that is inconsistent.

My last question to you would be this . . . do you believe anyone has the right to decide what is best for you in life? Or, is that solely up to you?

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
No. 9 the lines are muddled or they are compartmentalized based upon safety or other things. Take for instance Maryland has a "helmet" law requiring all motorcycle riders such as myself to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. This law I can't stand and would like to have the right to choose for myself. I understand the concept behind it (saving on head trauma). On the other hand, the recent "texting" bill sounds like a sound law because it could cause major accidents. The only difference is that the "helmet" law is protecting me personally, but the "texting" law protects the community. So what side of the fence am I on?

I believe that regardless of party affiliation, if the American government can find the right balance between laws meant to help the few but hurt the many, and laws that hurt a few, but help the many, I think we might be on to something.

To that extent, the Health Care bill to me is a prime example of helping the few(non-insured) by hurting the many(average America). My question would be, why blow up the entire healthcare structure just to solve that problem? Am I saying that healthcare is great and needs to be left alone, no I am not. There are many proposals that sound far more plausible that blowing the whole thing up. Another thing that concerns me is the number of non-insured that are illegal aliens, why should they get the benefits that law abiding citizens of this great nation receive. There has to be consequences for actions otherwise lets just remove the Border Patrol and make our borders open to everyone. Obviously there is no way that we can do that so maybe the first thing we reform is border protection. That would drastically draw down the numbers of un-insured. Right? Lets take a systematic approach rather than a all or nothing hail mary. We should isolate the problems that are causing Americans to be un-insured, I am sure that unemployement is a major factor. We should have make a more concerted effort to stimulate growth from the small business owners and big business to promote job positions. I think if Congress and the President had taken this approach, things would be looking much better for them and the country at this point. Unfortunately, it just looks like the Democrats have the majority and the executive office and they are more concerned with jamming every piece of legislation that they could through into law. That is why the Tea Parties were formed.

I really don't think you and I need to bicker back and forth about derogatory comments but I stand by my assessment that members on this board do exhibit a superiority attitude and its mainly in these political discussions. I'll admit there are comments on this board that will draw me out and I did take exception to the fact that Wilton questioned Bob in Boston's willingness to love his children. It was pointless and a poor way of trying to make the point about homosexuality.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
No. 9,
The reason that Sarah Palin will not get an opportunity to run for President is because of her own party and the fat cats that don't want to see REAL change within the Republican party or the United States.

One thing I have never done here is completely absolve the Republican Party of its role in the demise of the economy or the state that this country is in. If Republicans had stayed to their conservative morals, things like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would not have happened. This fantasy called bipartisanship has caused us considerable damage to this great nation. Yes there are issues that both parties can come together on but conservatism and liberalism are two completely different belief systems.

How can there be middle ground on issues like:
Homosexuality - you are either for or against...
The right to choose an abortion or determining that the fetus is a living person. - There is definitely no middle ground there.
The economic processes are completely different

Where can bipartisanship actually work?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5890
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Piratefan13 wrote:
No. 9 the lines are muddled or they are compartmentalized based upon safety or other things. Take for instance Maryland has a "helmet" law requiring all motorcycle riders such as myself to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. This law I can't stand and would like to have the right to choose for myself. I understand the concept behind it (saving on head trauma). On the other hand, the recent "texting" bill sounds like a sound law because it could cause major accidents. The only difference is that the "helmet" law is protecting me personally, but the "texting" law protects the community. So what side of the fence am I on?


And when someone who is driving a motorcycle and not wearing a helmet gets into a serious accident, has a serious head trauma and runs up medical bills into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, all of our insurance rates are impacted. One might claim "why should I have to pay an increased health insurance premium just because someone didn't want to wear a helmet?" What if that person died of head trauma, is underinsured and leaves a widow and kids with no means of support. Society then pays to help support them via Social Security.

What if Maryland's law read that an operator of a motorcycle could ride helmetlessly only if the operator carried $5,000,000 in medical insurance coverage to cover potential medical costs if you are involved in a traumatic accident which leaves you in a coma? And life insurance (if they have a spouse/dependants) of $250,000 per spouse and number of dependants?

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Willton wrote:
Bob in Boston wrote:
Beyond keeping this nation safe from all enemies foreign and domestic, I favor as little governmental involvement in our lives as possible.

...

In fact, I support state laws against abortion and same-sex marriage.

Hypocrite.


How so. The federal reach is articulated and limited. If not specifically outlined, laws are left to the states. Where is the hypocrisy of letting the states decide what they want in the context of the constitution.

ZM

I have no problem with federalism. I agree that states should be allowed to legislate in certain realms (e.g., public health and safety, family law, tort and contract, business associations, criminal law) while the federal government can legislate in others (e.g., interstate commerce, patent and copyright laws, national defense, immigration), and I'm cool with a little bit of overlap (e.g., property law, taxation). But that is a far different discussion than the rationales for legislation. When Bob said "Beyond keeping this nation safe from all enemies foreign and domestic, I favor as little governmental involvement in our lives as possible," that's not a statement regarding federalism. That's a statement regarding the rationale for legislation and regulation in general. So, to say that government should stay out of our lives unless it involves keeping our nation safe from foreign enemies (federal issue) or domestic enemies (state and federal issue), and then to turn around and say that he supports government involvement in family issues that do not involve domestic or foreign enemies (unless he thinks homosexuals are a domestic enemy), is to talk out of both sides of one's mouth.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
My insurance from BCBS is outstanding and I would be happy with a "helmet" law that was conditional.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4270
Location: Zelienople, PA
I'm not sure the motorcycle thing is the best example of what you are trying to say, No. 9. In PA, where they repealed helmet laws a few years ago, the deciding issue was the insurance co. statistics that showed no difference in traumatic injury between helmeted or helmet-less riders. I think it only shows that riding a cycle is more dangerous, period. As it is, insurance rates are already higher for that group, and so the successful argument was that there is no overriding damage to the commonweal whether with or without.

Should the state have instead, banned motorcycles?

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:36 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Wilton makes a valid argument when he explains the problem of 'liitle as possible government' except where certain social issues are concerned.

Federalism is a part of our history and was for sure part of the founding fathers intent. The reason was, of course, to keep power from being to concentrated. The same reason for three branch of government. As time has past, this whole concept has evolved. Today the central government has much more power. So much so that instead of calling our government in Washington the natioal government as would be correct, we call it the federal government.

The issue of state power was argued by John C. Calhoun when he and South Carolina professed that their state could nullify national laws that conflicted with state laws. In that argument about who has the power, the national government won out easily. But it was one of the main reasons for the establishment of the Confederacy.

Today we have accepted that the national government is much more powerful and important. States are not permitted to conflict with them and the Americsn public has by and large accepted that as the way it should be.

Now some Americans preach that we need to limit government so that it has little function in our lives as possible. It really can be determined by understanding the need for government. Is it for national defense, and little else? Or are there other needs that are only met by government? Without government we would not have Social Security, Medicare, presciption drug coverage, Medicaide, funding for highways and bridges,national parks, and many, many other services we demand. Government can not and should not get out of our lives unless we want to revolutionize the way we live.

In the end I am left with this question that some of you may be able to answer: WHY WOULD ANYONE WHO SEES GOVERNMENT AS THE ENEMY AND CAUSE OF OUR PROBLEMS EVER WANT TO HOLD A POSITION IN THAT GOVERNMENT?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
No. 9 wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
"From what I read"

I believe this is the problem we have in America today. We isolate ourselves from anyone with a different point of view and never bother to learn what the average person thinks. You say that Republicans/Conservatives want to ban gay marriage. But I sit here knowing people like Pete Coors (chairman of Coors Brewing Co and a former candidate for the Senate from Colorado) and Meg McCain (daughter of Senator John McCain) are advocates of gay marriage. Coors Brewing Company already gives benefits to the same sex partners of it's homosexual employees. Both Cindy and Meg McCain (the wife and daughter of Sen John McCain) recently did ads in California opposing Prop 8.

If you want to take the stances of the religious right and apply them to all Republicans/Conservatives, that's fine. Just don't be offended when Republicans/Conservatives take the stances of groups like Code Pink and applyt them to all Democrats/Liberals.


Jeremy -
My take: "Conservatives" are a subpart of Republicans. And there is a gradation of "conservative" doctrine. "Liberals" are a subpart of Democrats. And there is a gradation of "liberalism."

The last presidential election is a perfect illustration. McCain was the Republican candidate but he was hardly embraced by conservatives.

What I wrote was "from what I read, most conservatives." I was not equating conservatives with Republicans. I did not write, "from what I read, most Republicans."

I wholeheartedly agree with you on a particular point. A problem in this country today is the attempted villification on both sides of the aisle through sterotyping and emotional language. Just listen to Olberman and Limbaugh. Maddow and Hannity or Beck. Republicans are portrayed as "right wing religious nutjobs." Democrats are portrayed as "liberal socialists/communists." The polarization of this country into two "sides" is extremely disheartening to me.



Yes, the villification of the opposing viewpoints is both sad and depressing. But it's going on here right now. There are posters on both sides of these issues that have shown little to no respect for their fellow board members.

Both sides believe their way to be better when the reality that both sides come off as whiners. But whatever, I think some folks need a little forced vacation from this board to get some maturity back, but that's not my call.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:10 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Willton, for the past year or so it has been amusing to joust with you here. It no longer is – a revelation that probably won’t come as a surprise.

Point-by-point rebuttals and the obsession with getting in the last word – often with a sneer and the impugning of others’ good faith – aren’t indicative of a superior intellect, which your style would suggest you believe you have. Like a temperamental child stamping his little foot, they are signs of immaturity. Hopefully they will dissipate as more of life’s challenges arrive at your doorstep.

I still wish you well.

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Well put Bob, I don't have any "issues" with Wilton either, I think its fun to debate the issues. One thing it does is forces me to look at the other side a little more and get perspective. I hope that folks don't let the debates about politics affect the comradery here because that would be unfortunate. We can argue about our differences but in the end we are all still Americans and all Pirates fans (at least the folks here). There should be no hard feelings.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: It will take a miracle . . .
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:44 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Piratefan13 wrote:
Well put Bob, I don't have any "issues" with Wilton either, I think its fun to debate the issues. One thing it does is forces me to look at the other side a little more and get perspective. I hope that folks don't let the debates about politics affect the comradery here because that would be unfortunate. We can argue about our differences but in the end we are all still Americans and all Pirates fans (at least the folks here). There should be no hard feelings.


I couldn't agree more. In fact some of my best friends and I disagree vehemently on many of these same subjects. I think it's fun and will say it sometimes too easy to get some pf you guys going. I also think Bob has a right to be wrong anytime he wants (joke Bob-- don't get sassy with me).

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 135 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits