An honest question to those on the left.

reply to post by nwtrucker


I don't ever believe the end justifies the means!
The path we take is more important then what
is attained through that action! This is what is
now lacking in our society and it's called integrity!
Our moral fortitude is under attack and is what
has enslaved the majority! TPTB seem to have
many weapons in their arsenal for keeping
America complacent!
As for my stance on issues of political ideology.
I would consider myself to be slightly left of
center but don't agree with any of the policies
that this presidential administration has
invoked onto the unwilling populous!
What is a liberal anyhow? It's surely not
any of those in power on the democratic
ticket. We have been duped by this right
left paradigm for far too long to even discuss
agreeing with such plutocratic policies whether
the Dems or the Reps are in office!
We will need to remove those that are helping
the banking elite, MIC and the overwhelming
industrial machines that have prevented Main
street to prosper! We will need to come together
in a cooperative effort until the will of the people
is the only game in town! This is the true meaning
of socialism, that term that's been demonized by the
right wing to keep power in the hands of the
status quo! Until we take back the power of
production we will continue to degrade into
a self fulfilling destruction that will touch the
lives of all Americans sooner or later!

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


I hear you and thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I specifically don't agree with your position on religion, of course, but that's neither here nor there.

I believe that the best parts of all religions spring from human beings ourselves. From my perspective, there never were any "invisible entities" involved at any point. All the beautiful logic, and morals, and ethics ... these are all human creations.

Here's the downside, we're also the authors of all the hateful, spiteful, violence and horror that we attribute all too often to the gods as well. It's all within US. We have to make the choice to do good rather than evil.

I just don't require an imaginary friend to encourage me to do so.

Cheers.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Gryphon66, I've always held the same view re: congress being sold out whores.

It comes across to me that the Patriot Act seems to highlight/straw on the camel's back(?) event/example of it, by you and others.

However, concerning the Patriot Act, I actually give them a mulligan. Here's my reasoning.

First, my own personal view, at the time the act was passed, was that I have nothing to hide, therefore no big deal. I chalked it up to a "war time" measure. I surmise many held a similar view in congress rather than some "I have to pay back for political donation or some such. I also suspect some thought that good and honorable men would tweek it as necessary and promptly ended any further thought on it.

Second, I highly doubt that members of congress had anything to do with scripting that legislature any more than they did with the A.C.A.. That both are probably a collation of a wish-list by those in gov't concerned with those issues.

Is that the case? I have no info one way or the other. It is, however, as plausible as any other speculation.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Hmmm, that "imaginary friend" has other ramifications, however. It raises the possibility of consequence of actions after the fact...life. Or at least the fear of it.

You may not need that imaginary friend to do the "right thing" but that doesn't mean others do not. We've all seen what happens when consequence of actions is removed or reduced, I.E. major power outages or police strikes...

Our whole legal system is based on it. It is workable, to a degree.

The argument that without "religion" civilization could never has developed has merit. IMO.

It introduced that "commonality" that trumped "self".

reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom


Thanks for the response.

We are a social species. We require social acts to even survive. We had forms of it long before the Socialism dogma developed.

"Socialism" is fraught with peril as elitism, capitalism or any of the others. The extreme versions all lead to fascism, each with different names...same place.

The Patriot Act fails on its face under the Fourth Amendment.

I also believe the War Powers Resolution to be unconstitutional.

There is no war when Congress has not declared war.

These reflect the kinds of Executive Abuse of Power that scare me, not whether I have to pay a tax penalty if I don't get health insurance.

[Next post]

Are you really saying, Trucker, that you believe that the source of all human ethics and morals is fear?

I'll have to give that one some thought; I usually say that the moral/ethic sense arose from the social bonds arising in the troupes/tribes of primate/primitive ancestors, in other words, we help each other (love, protect, care for, treat the sick, the weak and the dying) because it was bred into us to do so ... the successful groups were the ones that developed these strong social bonds and preserved each other to become stronger, hold more territory, control more resources, etc.

What you're referring to is the other side of that behavior ... when we raided the territory of another troupe/tribe for their food, water access, shelter, etc. etc.

The modern world has robbed us of our "tribe" ... and I can attribute many of society's ills to that fact.

I'll have to think about the fear thing though. That's a good one.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Gryphon66, We gave up the declaration of war control when no one stopped the president from having the "Football". The ability to declare, in all intents and purposes, execute and wage war...fully.

I'm not privy to how that came about, nor interested, for that matter, as clearly the founders could never have envisioned a 30 minute response time-much less these days since Boomers where invented-and don't have a problem with it.

So many actions have fallen into the Bin of "the lesser of two evils" that singling the Patriot Act out, in my mind and initially, was not of great concern for me. Now, with the avalanche of regulations and spoken intent by this President to accelerate the process, all of them, yes both sides, have me doubting federalism and this union is even worth it.

Re: the fear, it is a factor, for some but not all. The suicide bombers are the signal proof of the "not all". For me. I fear rattlesnakes-another reason I love Alaska- I respect police and am aware of what the consequences would be if did something that caused them to respond. But I don't fear them...some do.

There is also, hope. The hope there is something better, saner, elsewhere. More beautiful, more pleasurable.

Fear is a factor, from what I can see. perhaps with the down spiral, more now than a few decades ago..

reply to post by charles1952


I vote democrat mostly. I did vote for Obama. I vote for different issues at the city, county and state level, which sometimes, means I vote for an independent or republican.

The only issue that separates the President, for me, is war. I will never vote for a war hawk President again. My grandchildren will be paying for the current wars. Which is why we have the current dog fight over who gets the money in the nation going on.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Ok, the thread has run it's course. I was the one who asked the question-even though it was poorly worded- so what have I gleaned from the responses.

The first and perhaps least relevant is the fact that almost no one, other than me, referred to Obama by name. A few were quick with Bush"s and Reagan's, but not Obama's.

It was "all presidents" or Bush/Reagan.

Next, the few that admitted they didn't care for the A.C.A. or how it was being implemented didn't clarify if it was Obamacare, specifically, or gov't/gov't controlled health care in general that they disagreed with.

Another poster stated he didn't care for the A.C.A. but blamed congress for the problems?? Seeing that the Republicans voted to the man against the A.C.A.-and were elected, at least in part, based on that platform, it seems to me that the Republicans held the same view as those who disliked the A.C.A. and somehow that equates to being their fault??

I guess I'm just not smart enough to figure how that adds up....

As many predicted, there is no real clarification, for me at least, on how the "left" feels about Obama's "tweeking" of the A.C.A. or his State of the Union Address.

Yes. I'm generally a conservative and I am philosophically against socialized medicine and fully agree with every act that slows, repeals or defunds the A.C.A.. I also believe that, again,is a big reason the Republicans have control of the congress.
They don't have control of the Presidency or the Senate for no other reason than the elections are more frequent for the Congress. That could very well change this fall in the senate....

I conclude that the Democrat base supports Obama. That the more moderate portion of the party is starting to squirm and the independents are largely disaffected. Support is also waning in the African-American, young voters and Latino communities.

Bottom line is, while I definitely learned from many of the posters, there is no clear answer to the question probably due to the wasn't one to be gotten in the first place, as some of you predicted.

I do appreciate the many honest responses from both views-and those outside the two views-and feel slightly less ignorant.

If I may have a follow-up question, I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. Is there a fix to the general mess the federal gov't is mired in? I fear there isn't.

nwtrucker
reply to post by nwtrucker

 

Yes. I'm generally a conservative and I am philosophically against socialized medicine and fully agree with every act that slows, repeals or defunds the A.C.A..

So you support all the myriad of endless and silly votes to kill the ACA by the GOP that they knew would go nowhere and simply wasted everyone's time? You support pointless government shutdowns/public Republican temper tantrums over it?

I also believe that, again,is a big reason the Republicans have control of the congress.

The 2010 takeover by Republicans of the House of Representatives is alleged by many to have been a reaction to some Medicare cuts and Republicans running on it scaring senior voters. There was also the issue of the race of the recently elected President, but I'll give the American people the benefit of doubt that this wasn't why the House got taken over by Republicans.

They don't have control of the Presidency or the Senate for no other reason than the elections are more frequent for the Congress. That could very well change this fall in the senate....

If you remember the 2012 election season Republicans, especially the Romney team, thought they were going to take the Presidency and were shocked that they did not.

There were also many reports predicting Republican takeover of the Senate. Didn't happen there either.

I listen to conservative media sources and almost to a man I heard a similar excuse being given. That the American people are now lazy and voting themselves money and benefits rather than working. Conservative ideology did not fail to the pundits despite all evidence otherwise.

If I may have a follow-up question, I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. Is there a fix to the general mess the federal gov't is mired in? I fear there isn't.

The general mess as in the war, the economy, the environment, and everything else the fed is involved in officially and unofficially?

No. Although removing GOP obstruction would go some way towards creating some sense of order out of the chaos.

I gave my response here in numerous ways: I often referred to President Obama directly and by name, and I stated that I personally have yet to see an Executive Order in his Administration that comes anywhere NEAR the line of "Tyrant" that is so often applied to him. He is the Chief Executive and he is responsible for implementing the laws of the land. His "administrative acts" in that capacity attend to some of the greatest issues perceived in this piece of legislation (the ACA).

I am not afraid of "socialized medicine" at all because I am of the mind that healthcare is one of the few things that Government SHOULD be providing. I think every American should have the equivalent of the "gold package" of care that has been offered for years to Federal employees (including, until recently, the Congress) and that should be paid for by payroll deduction and for those that fall below the poverty level, it should be a benefit. Frankly, I'd rather have "my tax dollars" go for someone's doctor visit than for another bullet in some child's head in Afghanistan.

That's just me, though.

reply to post by Frith


I have no doubt that that is your opinion. I understand it.

We shall see how it goes in the fall. It certainly is up in the air if for no other reason than the near innate ability of the Republicans to screw things up even when handed to them on a silver platter by Obama in the finest of Clintonesque tradition.

As far as your solution to Republican "obstructionism" goes well that's their mandate, what they were elected for and why they hold the house majority. To lock up this mess until the fall. Your obstructionism (of Obama) is our frustration of how little they've "obstructed"....More please...

They very idea of obstructionism is an insult to anyone with more than three brain cell hooked up in series. (above a room temperature I.Q.) Both have their views and to expect one side to "assume the position" is, at best naïve, at worst....

reply to post by Gryphon66

Gryphon66, I wasn't referring to you. You were a rare exception to the thread in general and it's appreciated...

Thanks Trucker.

A general comment: President Washington warned Americans about allowing political parties to overtake the governance of the country in his Farewell Address --

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It [Party Politics - G66] serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

I cannot think of any better way to express what I see in America today than that last paragraph there. President Washington predicted it in 1796. If you're never read the speech in full, I beg you to go read it: George Washington's Farewell Address.

This is from the very FOUNDING of our nation. True then, true now.

Abolish the political parties. Return the concept of "service to country" rather than "political career."

And hang the true Traitors in front of the Capitol for all to see.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Damn, that makes Nostradamus look like an amateur. I will read it. Thank you.

nwtrucker
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

Damn, that makes Nostradamus look like an amateur. I will read it. Thank you.

I think you'll discover why many hold Washington apart from everyone that came after him.

If you really want you mind blown, remember Glenn Beck's hero Thomas Paine? Here's one of his later writings: Agrarian Justice

If you keep looking, I think you're going to find out that our Founders are quite different in some cases from what the media's echo chamber has stated that they are.

Best, I've enjoyed the discussion,

reply to post by Gryphon66


I really really like the last 2 links (Washington and Paine) I think I had read the Washington one years ago, but had forgotten about it...the Paine was totally new and I see there is much more available at that site.

Thanks!!

All I can offer is the best collection of quotes from Stephen Wright, the visionary:

www.weather.net...

Seriously, I love the Paine link!!

reply to post by bbracken677


Glad you enjoyed the links, Bracken.

I think this thread was beneficial on many levels. I've found at least two Conservatives here at ATS that I can actually have a conversation with, rationally and reasonably. LOL.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Thanks for the the thread, NW Trucker. It was a good read for me.

To answer your final question, one of the biggest problems I see is the dysfunctional public opinion. The political process has become very complicated and one could make a career of calculating political moves. I think a majority of the public has not paid attention because of this and as time has progressed there has been a lot of faith put in an entity that sometimes does not have your best interests (rights and freedoms) at heart.

IMHO, I think that if we can get past the fact that everyone has a conflicting idea of how government should be run, we can start discussing real solutions to real problems. Many folks will parrot talking points to score stars without any real inner-ideological debate. I understand that many of us will disagree and that is the beauty of diversity; we can get solutions from many ideas. Everyone has a point at which they will draw a political line in the sand and say, "Do not cross." If we can agree that some freedoms are sacred, then we find ways to fix issues without violating rights. But this is just my 2 cents.

reply to post by bmullini


I appreciate your comment on the thread.

I'd say you've articulated it pretty well. At the state level, while they are pretty much "purchased" as the Feds are, there does seem to be a deeper awareness of economic issues within their constituents. We see Governors under both political banners taking action to improve the economic situation for their state.

Not many, but a few.

We KNOW agreement is possible on the federal level, even these days, when we see a rubber stamped extension of the debt ceiling increase, apparent agreement to forgive the illegals and bring even more immigrants into this nation, so on.

They damn well are making agreements! Just not in the areas that have been neglected for too long.

By and large, I don't believe there will be broad agreement without a major incident occurring. Flat out not enough people willing to step out and do it.

I admire your outlook. I just don't see it as realistic....I just don't see any out from this mess...