Political Threads

[Typhoon1244]

Gentleman, I have achieved greatness. I have received a P.M. from an individual who thinks I'm a "flamming conservative a__hole in disguse [his spelling]" because I agree that Bill Clinton was a liar.

Does that make me a "moderate?"

Anyway, one thing I have noticed from browsing Flightinfo.com for a while: moderates and liberals are generally more secure in their beliefs than conservatives. You don't see them constantly posting threads that bash and belittle Republicans. Conservatives, however, apparently find it necessary to constantly thump their chests and assert their intellectual superiority. It's as if they're afraid we'll forget what their views are if they don't continuously remind us. It's a little sad.

And it's probably making generaltso really mad!

 

[CitationLover]

And it's probably making generaltso really mad!

mmm chicken! now I have to order chinese.


i hope the liberterian ranks keep swelling. they seem the only viable alternative in my eyes to the demublicans. no wait, vote green!

 

[flywithastick]

I disagree with you, Typhoon. The majority of libs ('rats) are heavily influenced by *peer pressure*, rather than convictions. think about it.

On this board, conservatives appear to be bashing the libs becasue there are more of us here.

As for continuously reminding/in your face policies... how about those homosexuals? Talk about in your face! go back in your closet, please!

 

[CitationLover]

As for continuously reminding/in your face policies... how about those homos/dikes? Talk about in your face! go back in your closet, please!

thats an intelligent way to get a point across (i agree with the assesment though). have you robbed any lunch money lately?

 

[chawbein]

As for continuously reminding/in your face policies... how about those homos/dikes? Talk about in your face! go back in your closet, please!

How inSENSitive!!

Feelin' your oats today I see!!

 

[flywithastick]

thats an intelligent way to get a point across (i agree with the assesment though). have you robbed any lunch money lately?

I *was* being sensitive about it. I'm sick of them. I have no problem with them doing *their* thing at home, but when they sue for access to the boyscouts, demand equal protection as a family or worse, preference as a minority, and finally - adopt or bear innocent children - I get steamed. Back to the closet with them all!!

Robbed (stolen?) any lunch money?? nope. But I might have to shake you down for any good lunch treats you might be carrying with you!! it's about that time...

 

[CitationLover]

well....i just had the worst taquitos (Excelline) known to man....you're more than welcome to them....ahh the life of frozen foods waiting for a duty day to begin.

flywithastick, i agree with your sentiments. however, namecalling is no way to get a point across.

 

[flywithastick]

flywithastick, i agree with your sentiments. however, namecalling is no way to get a point across.

You're right. I changed it.

 

[CitationLover]

on a related topic, i actually think the word dyke is pretty funny phonetically. dildo is another funny sounding word imho.

im still miffed at northwestern for changing dyche stadium to ryan field.

 

[Typhoon1244]

...how about those homosexuals? Talk about in your face! Go back in your closet, please!

Originally posted by Citationlover
...I agree with the assesment though.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted this. What exactly, sir, are you trying to imply? I'm gay because I don't share your political views?

Very clever. You're a friggin' genius, Fly.

 

[Timebuilder]

moderates and liberals are generally more secure in their beliefs than conservatives. You don't see them constantly posting threads that bash and belittle Republicans.

I wouldn't mistake activity for insecurity.

I don't see conservatives constantly posting threads that bash liberals, but I do see people such as myself answering statements that I know from my liberal background to be rhetoric out of the liberal playbook. Today I saw Wes Clarks' campaign chief on CNN saying "tax breaks for the rich" when talking about Bush. Now, educated and aware people like you and me know that rich people pay the VAST majority of taxes in this country, and therefore stand to receive the most when a tax cut is made. This is a good thing, when you consider that someone who gets a larger amount of money back from the government is more likely to invest that money and stimulate economic growth than someone like me who only gets a couple of hundred back. However, you won't hear an insightful explanation from ANY mainstream host when a liberal is trying to make political hay by repeating things like "tax breaks for the rich" or "tax breaks against working families". Suddenly, these intelligent journalists have nothing to say!!

Conservatives, however, apparently find it necessary to constantly thump their chests and assert their intellectual superiority. It's as if they're afraid we'll forget what their views are if they don't continuously remind us. It's a little sad

I have some experiences from both sides of this apparent "fence" that I feel are valuable because of that perspective. In addition, my broadcasting background gives me an additional perspective on the kind of media bias that I was personally a party to.

Instead of being "afraid (you'll) forget what (my) views are", I am trying to foster an understanding of a viewpoint that is rarely articulated in the media, the same media where I twisted, implied, suggested, inferred, sullied, and disguised.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Instead of being "afraid (you'll) forget what (my) views are", I am trying to foster an understanding of a viewpoint that is rarely articulated in the media, the same media where I twisted, implied, suggested, inferred, sullied, and disguised.

I think there are enough Limbaughs, Liddys, Hannitys, etc. out there that you needn't worry.

I wouldn't mistake activity for insecurity.

A fair answer...but that doesn't explain flywithastick's corelation between politics and homosexuality.

Maybe he's insecure about something else. Anyway...

I don't see myself ever being a Republican. I can't get behind a party whose primary focus is making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the Earth deader.

On the other hand, the Democrats apparently believe that the only way they can maintain their identity is to stubbornly adopt the opposite view of the Republicans on every issue. That's not ideology, that's lunacy! They've completely abandoned any pretense of dignity, rationality, and accountability. Look at Al Gore: decades of partisan politics has finally driven him out of his mind. The aftermath of the 2000 election reminded me of two first-graders having an argument. "I won...no, I did...no, I did, poopyhead!...I'm telling!..." etc, etc. The Democratic Party? I doubt it'll survive another five years as a coherent organization.

(Bart, my former arch-nemesis, actually gave me an idea: I'm going to check out the Libertarians' website...)

 

[Timebuilder]

I can't honestly speak for fly, but I think I understand what he means. However, I will speak for myself.

The homosexual movement has a lot of problems. First, they are trying to take a behavior that most people find "disgusting" and "reprehensible" to a position of mainstream acceptance.

Second, they are associating "pride" with an activity that is nothing to be proud of. To most people, this makes no more sense than NAMBLA having "pride" for having sexual desires for small boys. As a side note, some of the same Harvard and Yale psychologists that are board members on the major gay action comittees are also seen on the board of NAMBLA, despite the homosexual groups' attempts to prevent that association in the minds of the public. Think about it, a straight priest doesn't just start molesting boys one day. He likes males first, and then he focuses on young males.

Third, there is a great resistance in the homosexual movement to the use of condoms as a method of preventing AIDS. There is a curious association of the "sharing" of AIDS as an emblem of "love" for your partner. They want to retain the behavior at all costs, and complain to Washington that "not enough is being done to cure AIDS". What this amounts to is this: AIDS could have been stopped 15 years ago, if the participants had been willing to STOP THE BEHAVIOR. Sadly, they are not willing to do this.

Simply being unwilling to accept the stigma associated with the "gay" lifestyle does not mean that the stigma will go away anytime soon. Several thousand years of this activity have not brought acceptance, and even court orders will fail to do so.

I have to point out that the prohibition does not spring from "homophobic" (I chuckle whenever I hear that) people as much as it does from Bible teaching. Apparently, at one point God felt so strongly about this kind of behavior that He destroyed two entire cities of the practitioners. This was a long time ago. Much later, in the New Testament, the book of Romans mentions this prohibition again. So, rather than directing us to "hate" anyone, (we don't, and He doesn't) He directs us to communicate that the behavior is to be avoided, despite any desires to engage in the behavior. This takes a lot of self control for most people, and perhaps that is what He is seeking to stimulate. Give someone a particular burden, and make yourself available for strength in avoiding giving in to that burden. There are "recoverd" homosexuals that now have opposite sex marriage partners, and they credit their faith in God for their success in this area. Unfortunately, there is little support for the idea of abstinence among homosexuals in their community.

I still know some people who are homosexual from my broadcasting days. I don't "hate" a single one of them. I used to feel that this was pretty benign behavior, until it started to spread death. Most of them are dead now. That's sad.

I hope I was able to illuminate this a little.

 

[350DRIVER]

I don't see myself ever being a Republican. I can't get behind a party whose primary focus is making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the Earth deader.

I couldn't have said it any better myself... As the saying goes, "If you want to live like a repubby then vote Democrat." The funny thing is that most of these people who support the current administration are getting nothing in return for their support. Go figure..


3 5 0

ps>> we are a much safer world today after what has transpired.LOL

 

[Timebuilder]

The funny thing is that most of these people who support the current administration are getting nothing in return for their support. Go figure..

Actually, the funny thing is that there are people above the age of 17 who are democrats. I was one of them. I still can't figure out how I could have been so misled, but I am glad that I finally came to my senses.

I'm getting nothing in return? I'm getting the satisfaction of knowing that every day, more and more people in the US are coming to their senses. They are imagining where would be if a democrat had been in the White House when we were attacked.

I used to think you had something of substance to add to the discussion.

I'm rethinking that now.

 

[350DRIVER]

I'm getting nothing in return? I'm getting the satisfaction of knowing that every day, more and more people in the US are coming to their senses. They are imagining where would be if a democrat had been in the White House when we were attacked.

I am also getting the great satisfaction of knowing that every day, more and more people in the US are waking up and realizing that this country is taking steps backwards every day and fortunately the opposition is finally being very vocal about what has taken place. This is turning into a "joke" but 04" should get us back on the right track.

350

 

[mar]

I can't STOP myself!

[Edit: Exchange between 350 and Timebuilder occured while I was writing....for whatever that's worth.]

I try to resist. I really do. I only come to Flightinfo because I love to fly.

But I get sucked into these CRAZY debates because someone once told me that silence is tantamount to consent.

Timebuilder: I must go on the record *ONE MORE TIME* and inform you that I consider your previous post in bad taste and generally ill informed.

Look.

First of all, Flywithastick made a statement about homosexuals in general. I don't believe it was directed at Typhoon personally.

Second, you (Timebuilder) take his (Typhoon's) misunderstanding as an opportunity to ostensibly *clarify* Fly's original and insignifcant remark.

You also seem helpless to resist offering an inflammatory opinion when none was requested or required.

Where do you get off?

Just because the frickin' thread is titled "Political Threads" does that mean you can just arbitrarily pick any topic that flies into your head?

Why must you take every opportunity...-- No -- ...Why must you create a controversy at every turn?

More to the point: Why couldn't you just allow Fly's comment about homosexuals to stand (or fall) on its own merit? Your elaboration added absolutely nothing to the discussion on the original topic.

Moving right along...
Back to the topic...

I agree with Fly (bashing my head against the wall) that I think all of the Liberal bashing is simply a product of Them outnumbering Us.

I don't take it personally. I think a lot of it is just juvenile antagonizing. Unfortunately, as I explained above, I feel compelled to respond to most of it.

Though I've previously resolved to only respond to aviation threads I can't help but interject when I see so much support and enouragement for what are, without a doubt, conclusions made on false assumptions.

So often someone will float a really tenous opinion. And then someone else chimes with, Oh yeah, me too. Then there are the links to obviously biased and uncritical websites; books and authors are cited; and before you know it there's this feeding frenzy of collective opinion based on nothing more than a group of fears/prejudices/hates or just sheer laziness.

Is that phenomenon exclusive to Conservatives? Of course not.

Have I read some Liberal theory right here on this board that smacks of party line rhetoric. Of course I have.

But speaking for myself I have always maintained that we are individuals first. The very first sin in critical thinking is to begin from a position of generalization.

I believe Typhoon does an excellent job at critical thinking. Maybe too good because that poor bastard can see both sides to every coin.

I always try to see both sides too but at some point I have to make up my mind and commit.

Regardless, I believe this is the true hallmark of Liberal thought. Afterall, if one is thinking liberally then one is thinking freely.

Free from tradition
Free from dogma
Free from fear

If you're conservative, well, then that says to me you're happy with the way things are and you'd prefer them to not change.

Whatever. There's a time and place for all of that I suppose.

But here is where I must point out that the conservative is doomed to a lifetime of frustration because change is inevitable. And everyone (as individuals) are comfortable with differing rates of change.

In sum: I'm opposed to uncritical thought. I'm opposed to not thinking forward.

Give me a conservative issue, well thought out, and I'll gladly consider it.

Spew disrespectful nonsense and use language that diminishes a fellow American and I'm sorry but I must retort.

 

[UpNDownGuy]

I agree completely....

I don't see myself ever being a Republican. I can't get behind a party whose primary focus is making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the Earth deader.

I'm old enough to remember when the republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. These days, we have Clinton with a budget surplus, and Bush with record deficits, while engineering the largest increase in the size of government in US history. How times have changed.

(Bart, my former arch-nemesis, actually gave me an idea: I'm going to check out the Libertarians' website...)

Honestly, I vote Libertarian more than any other party. I truly believe we need a third party in this country. If we had a legitimate third party, most of the crooked deals made by Congress wouldn't be possible. Look at the UK, where they have dozens of legitimate parties. Everyone has to vote their conscience, because there are simply too many parties to be able to broker a crooked deal. All that being said, the Libertarians have a few funny ideas. I guess that's the way it is with any party though; you just go with the one that best represents the majority of your beliefs.

In '04 however, I'm going to vote Democrat. Whoever they nominate has my vote. I just don't believe this country can withstand another 4 years of Dubya at the helm.

 

[mar]

The Green Party

The Libertarians are a little too on the fringe for me.

I've been voting Green for about 10 years.

If you don't know anything about them don't jump to any conclusions just because of their name.

The Greens are mostly about reform...and fiscal responsibility.

They're also concerned about the environment (among other issues) but it's nothing radical.

I make my living directly (DIRECTLY) from the North Slope oil fields and I still support the Greens.

 

[fLYbUDDY]

....... It's a little sad.

And it's probably making generaltso really mad!

You made a rhyme