Just Watched the Democratic Presidential Debate

[Collegeboy]

I think you are trying to make something out of something that is not there.

No way am I for a global "utopian" society in a way as to take away the national sovereignty of a country and have a one world government.

A global society is one in which each country works together to advance their cause and keep their sovereignty. If there is a problem between the two they take it to an international court, if there needs to be a problem solved they get together and decide if it needs to be solved and if yes they solve it.

Funny how you used the word utopian.

As to me being a centrist, look at my ideas, how I am a left is the question I ask you?

And Bush is a silver spoon candidate, there is no way he can get away from it because it is him.

[Albinonewt]

This should be enough to persuade anyone that Clark is not a centrist, and in fact liberal. Michael Moore's endorsement (sort of)

Michael Moore on Clark

[Collegeboy]

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
No way am I for a global "utopian" society in a way as to take away the national sovereignty of a country and have a one world government.

Perhaps not, but I didn't say you were. I brought up the major world views and where they lie. That's all.

A global society is one in which each country works together to advance their cause and keep their sovereignty. If there is a problem between the two they take it to an international court, if there needs to be a problem solved they get together and decide if it needs to be solved and if yes they solve it.

I would replace the court with a mediator, chosen by the aggrieved parties, but otherwise I have no problem with that. The global courts that are set up consistantly attempt to overstep their bounds and always have their own agenda. Different mediators for different situations.

Funny how you used the word utopian.

Funny like clown?

As to me being a centrist, look at my ideas, how I am a left is the question I ask you?

You're pro-choice (despite whatever silly qualifier you add). Pro Judicial Activism. Pro Gay Marriage. Pro UN. Anti Tax cutting. You anti punishment stance on crime. Pro "socialist elements" government. You want to subsidize lower pay workers (which is against free market economics).

I mean, c'mon CB. You're a liberal. Maybe not the most liberal liberal to ever live, but you're definitly left of center.

And Bush is a silver spoon candidate, there is no way he can get away from it because it is him.

Whatever CB. Just Bush Bash until you believe it. Sure, he's from a rich family, and there's no way of pretending he isn't. But he's hardly nothing except a rich kid, especially not now after 2 wars, 9/11, and a recession.

Was Al Gore a silver spoon candidate? He was from a rich family too. Kerry is rich, is he a silver spoon candidate?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
So believing the person's right to speak is all of a sudden liberal?

1-4 are typical views of liberals and ones held by many centrist. (me included)

5 and 6 are common sense

There is nothing centrsit about being pro choice. It's a for or against question. If your for you're left. If you're against you're right. Period. If yes is middle and no is right, is there a left answer? I suppose the middle would be the people that are for choice in the event of an emergency or rape. But firmly pro choice is leftist.

Pro Affirmitive action, and a clear quota system, is not centrist. It is leftist. The right opposes, the left embraces affirmitive action.

Tax cuts are a rightest posistion, elimination them (thus raising taxes) is a leftist posistion. It is not centrist.

five and six are subject to interpretation. A rightest feels that Bush did work with the international community (citing the several dozen nations working with us). A leftist does not feel that way.

And everybody (sane) opposes war. But how you define last resort differs on ideology. Bush, a rightest, defined last resort as after months of negotiations but prior to the day that Iraq was too powerful (nukes or something) to deal with (like North Korea). Clark, a leftist, feels that the last resort was later then that (exactly when there is no way to be sure).

And his idea on gun control is his idea. He is not for taking them away, but I do like his saying "if you want to shoot an assault rifle, join the army."

Until he is clearer on his posistion I guess anything is just speculation, but "join the army" as a response to people that want "assault" weapons sounds to me like a man that intends to regulate fire arms either as or more stringently as they are now.



Um, yeah it does.



It's Coulter, and her lending her conservative support behind Bush would tend to indicate that he's a conservative. (Not a Nazi or Stalinist, conservative).

And in the end, here is to hopping the Bush family goes the way of the Adams family (that is John and John Quincy Adams)

And I'll drink to the day the Kennedy family no longer has anything to do with American politics.

[Collegeboy]

I am left of center, there is no denying that. But I am not far enough to break out of the centrist category. A look at the scores is a good indicator.

I am not bashing Bush I am telling the truth. Of course Gore and Kerry are silver spoon candidates, but at least they didn't have their father bail them out of every problem.

Don't want to go to Vietnam, have daddy get you into the only group that can not go and then not even show up and have daddy cover it. Get caught smoking pot, have daddy cover it up, have you wife get caught drinking and driving, have your daddy cover it up, need to get into Yale business school but can hardly keep a C, have daddy make a call. Come on man there is no way you can deny the realities of how Bush got where he is.

As to my views.

I am pro-choice in for a woman to vote, but I am against abortion, I just don't think I have the right to make that decision.


If believing in a loose interpretation and a living constitution is liberal then I guess all our founding fathers were liberal too.

If believing that everyone should be afforded the same rights as defined by our founding fathers is liberal then I would hate to see what is conservative.

I do believe that our government should have some social elements which is a very central idea, the right says no, the left says all of it should, the central says some should.


I think you have to subsidize lower level workers for us to have a working class, as history shows it is needed to keep the country stable and working.

There is no need to bring this thread any further away from the topic, so if you want to continue to discuss me, please PM me.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

And I'll drink to the day the Kennedy family no longer has anything to do with American politics.

For personal reasons I can not drink to that :) .

I will answer the rest when I get back from rehabilitation.

[Albinonewt]

Fine CB, you're dead center. If that's what you want to belive then you go right ahead and believe it.

Oh, and since supporting SOME socialism is centrist, I suppose you can tell me what facist policies you support to balance out your centrism?

[Albinonewt]

Article

Here's a good article on Clark written by (suprise suprise) a conservative.

otherwise I'll continue to do so.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not bashing Bush I am telling the truth. Of course Gore and Kerry are silver spoon candidates, but at least they didn't have their father bail them out of every problem.

Are you sure about that? I wouldn't be so certain. But, frankly I can't prove they did, and more then you can prove they did't.

Don't want to go to Vietnam, have daddy get you into the only group that can not go and then not even show up and have daddy cover it. Get caught smoking pot, have daddy cover it up, have you wife get caught drinking and driving, have your daddy cover it up, need to get into Yale business school but can hardly keep a C, have daddy make a call. Come on man there is no way you can deny the realities of how Bush got where he is.

Bush served (albiet in the rich kid corps with all the other kids). And he did get into Yale and maintain a fair average. And just how much power do you think his dad had 40 years ago? He wasn't president then, he was the assistant ambassador to China, hardly the posistion that gives you unlimited pull.

Yes, being rich helped Bush and played a part in his upbringing and his background. But to say that right now, after being Preisdent for 3 years through wars, recession, and terrorist attacks, he's nothing more then a silver spoon candidate is gross niave

[Albinonewt]

And how do you figure redistribution of wealth is a centrist principle?

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

There is nothing centrsit about being pro choice. It's a for or against question. If your for you're left. If you're against you're right. Period. If yes is middle and no is right, is there a left answer? I suppose the middle would be the people that are for choice in the event of an emergency or rape. But firmly pro choice is leftist.

Being for would put you in the left being against would put you in the right, those in the middle have a different idea about it.


Pro Affirmitive action, and a clear quota system, is not centrist. It is leftist. The right opposes, the left embraces affirmitive action.

How do you know what affirmitive action he supports?

Tax cuts are a rightest posistion, elimination them (thus raising taxes) is a leftist posistion. It is not centrist.

No both sides want to cut taxes if they can, just the reps like to do it when they can't.

five and six are subject to interpretation. A rightest feels that Bush did work with the international community (citing the several dozen nations working with us). A leftist does not feel that way.

And everybody (sane) opposes war. But how you define last resort differs on ideology. Bush, a rightest, defined last resort as after months of negotiations but prior to the day that Iraq was too powerful (nukes or something) to deal with (like North Korea). Clark, a leftist, feels that the last resort was later then that (exactly when there is no way to be sure).


Until he is clearer on his posistion I guess anything is just speculation, but "join the army" as a response to people that want "assault" weapons sounds to me like a man that intends to regulate fire arms either as or more stringently as they are now.

He was very clear in his year or so old responce.

Um, yeah it does.

No it does not


It's Coulter, and her lending her conservative support behind Bush would tend to indicate that he's a conservative. (Not a Nazi or Stalinist, conservative).

So Bush is not center like you all have said.

And to add something visual and deep to this thread.

http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0339/sutton.gif

[1stdeadeye]

CB,
Please learn to use the quote button right. It makes your posts tough to read.

Newt,
Why bother? CB is always right (or is it left)! I have pretty much given up on reasoning with him.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
CB,
Please learn to use the quote button right. It makes your posts tough to read.

Newt,
Why bother? CB is always right (or is it left)! I have pretty much given up on reasoning with him.

You can't tell the difference between the italicized and the regular?

And how can I change my mind when you have not proved me wrong. I am in the center (just to the left a little), I am not to the left for I disagree with many of their views, agree with many of the right, and disagree with many from the right.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy


You can't tell the difference between the italicized and the regular?

As I have done so in the past I refuse to respond to anything you write where you don't properly use the wuote system. If I can't quote you back to reply then I'm not replying at all. You're a relativily intelligent person CB, you should be able to use the button correctly. Starbase could.

And how can I change my mind when you have not proved me wrong. I am in the center (just to the left a little), I am not to the left for I disagree with many of their views, agree with many of the right, and disagree with many from the right.

CB, you're the same type of liberal that the mainstream media are. You're convinced that yours is the opinion that is the most centered and fair and as such you can't be accused of liberal bias. At least Deadeye and I are honest enough to ourselves and anyone that asks to admit that our ideology is slanted one direction and and such opens us up to a level of bias. You're so intellectually dishonest that it's completely pointless to even argue with you. When asked where you step over to the right you respond with (paraphrased) "Even though there's no right to own guns in the constitution I wouldn't take them away". Great, how noble of you. That's a very right wing attititude. All it is is a left wing opinion wrapped around a lack of conviction.

Oh, and on the living constitution thing. Since the Supreme Court uses it's judicial review power to interpret (read change) the constitution, and the foundnig fathers didn't include that power in the constitution then how do you suppose they always intended that to happen. They intended that changing the constitution be very difficult and require near consensus. I do not think (and neither did they) that the ability to change the rules of our society that fundamentally should rest in the hands of a few people wearing black robes. The major decisions of the Supreme Court (Like quotas, diversity, abortion, gay marriage) should be legislated, not decreed by the court. Because there are two very different sides in the legislation that guarantees that one of two things will happen. Either, no middle ground will be found and as such the matter remains unlegislated, OR middle ground is found and the matter can be properly dealt with. Take abortion, that was not a decision the Supreme Court should have made. It should have been legislated. Whichever way the Supreme Court went it was going to throw into arms half the coutry. The legislation isn't restricted to just affirming or denying a thing, so they could have handeled the matter with more finese.