Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2014-07-01 10:59 AM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival Originally posted by Jackemy1 What is the alternative..... I read this little analogy. If we are at a one hundred foot chasm and one guy says we need to build a 100 foot bridge to get across, that makes him an "extremist". And the other guy says there is no need to get across the chasm and therefore no need to build a bridge. That guy is labeled an "extremist" as well. So the third guys is a centrist and demand a compromise be made and a 50 foot bridge be built ending in thin air. It seems to me that the centrist is the one who lives in fantasy and the two extremes have a better grasp in reality even though there is strong disagreement. This country is filled with 50 foot bridges built by Washington. The word extreme has been used as a negative connotation as a rigid ideologue. But what really is an extremist other than someone who takes straight line positions based on well defined principles. The right is based in individual right, personal responsibility, and liberty while the left is based in egalitarianism, social justice, and the welfare of the whole is greater that of the individual. Both sides take a relatively straight lined position because they have both developed reasonably consistent ways to see the world. Then you have these independents that believe that borrowing a little from each side somehow makes them more enlightened yet in reality they stand for nothing. They take the politically expedient position and grab bits and pieces from both sides in the name of compromise. They have no thought out set of principles, no consistency, and no clue what to do. The end result is a lot of 50 foot bridges. The thing I don't like about this analogy is that it assumes the status quo is fine. If there's a fire coming towards us, we have to get to the other side of that chasm somehow. If both sides are so rigid in their beliefs that no solution is possible you end up burning. A 50' bridge is only useless when one side refuses to budge their position. If both sides are willing to give a little and *gasp* cooperate, and move 1/2 way down the chasm, a 50' bridge will be long enough to get you across. The country has a number of fires coming towards us (Medicare eating up a bigger and bigger part of the budget, climate change, another singing talent show just started on tv, etc.) and we have to find a way to get across the chasm. Blue, No yellow... Ahhhh........ |
|
2014-07-01 11:30 AM in reply to: drewb8 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by Jackemy1 What is the alternative..... I read this little analogy. If we are at a one hundred foot chasm and one guy says we need to build a 100 foot bridge to get across, that makes him an "extremist". And the other guy says there is no need to get across the chasm and therefore no need to build a bridge. That guy is labeled an "extremist" as well. So the third guys is a centrist and demand a compromise be made and a 50 foot bridge be built ending in thin air. It seems to me that the centrist is the one who lives in fantasy and the two extremes have a better grasp in reality even though there is strong disagreement. This country is filled with 50 foot bridges built by Washington. The word extreme has been used as a negative connotation as a rigid ideologue. But what really is an extremist other than someone who takes straight line positions based on well defined principles. The right is based in individual right, personal responsibility, and liberty while the left is based in egalitarianism, social justice, and the welfare of the whole is greater that of the individual. Both sides take a relatively straight lined position because they have both developed reasonably consistent ways to see the world. Then you have these independents that believe that borrowing a little from each side somehow makes them more enlightened yet in reality they stand for nothing. They take the politically expedient position and grab bits and pieces from both sides in the name of compromise. They have no thought out set of principles, no consistency, and no clue what to do. The end result is a lot of 50 foot bridges. The thing I don't like about this analogy is that it assumes the status quo is fine. If there's a fire coming towards us, we have to get to the other side of that chasm somehow. If both sides are so rigid in their beliefs that no solution is possible you end up burning. A 50' bridge is only useless when one side refuses to budge their position. If both sides are willing to give a little and *gasp* cooperate, and move 1/2 way down the chasm, a 50' bridge will be long enough to get you across. The country has a number of fires coming towards us (Medicare eating up a bigger and bigger part of the budget, climate change, another singing talent show just started on tv, etc.) and we have to find a way to get across the chasm. Blue, No yellow... Ahhhh........ Exactly. If you leave it up to the extremists, we end up standing on the same side of the chasm forever. That may be fine for some, but the rest of the world, one way or another, is finding a way to get across the bridge while we're still standing on the same side staring at each other and refusing to budge, like these guys: (zax.jpg) Attachments ---------------- zax.jpg (16KB - 1 downloads) |
2014-07-01 4:29 PM in reply to: drewb8 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by Jackemy1 What is the alternative..... I read this little analogy. If we are at a one hundred foot chasm and one guy says we need to build a 100 foot bridge to get across, that makes him an "extremist". And the other guy says there is no need to get across the chasm and therefore no need to build a bridge. That guy is labeled an "extremist" as well. So the third guys is a centrist and demand a compromise be made and a 50 foot bridge be built ending in thin air. It seems to me that the centrist is the one who lives in fantasy and the two extremes have a better grasp in reality even though there is strong disagreement. This country is filled with 50 foot bridges built by Washington. The word extreme has been used as a negative connotation as a rigid ideologue. But what really is an extremist other than someone who takes straight line positions based on well defined principles. The right is based in individual right, personal responsibility, and liberty while the left is based in egalitarianism, social justice, and the welfare of the whole is greater that of the individual. Both sides take a relatively straight lined position because they have both developed reasonably consistent ways to see the world. Then you have these independents that believe that borrowing a little from each side somehow makes them more enlightened yet in reality they stand for nothing. They take the politically expedient position and grab bits and pieces from both sides in the name of compromise. They have no thought out set of principles, no consistency, and no clue what to do. The end result is a lot of 50 foot bridges. The thing I don't like about this analogy is that it assumes the status quo is fine. If there's a fire coming towards us, we have to get to the other side of that chasm somehow. If both sides are so rigid in their beliefs that no solution is possible you end up burning. A 50' bridge is only useless when one side refuses to budge their position. If both sides are willing to give a little and *gasp* cooperate, and move 1/2 way down the chasm, a 50' bridge will be long enough to get you across. The country has a number of fires coming towards us (Medicare eating up a bigger and bigger part of the budget, climate change, another singing talent show just started on tv, etc.) and we have to find a way to get across the chasm. Blue, No yellow... Ahhhh........ But what about when the government "manufactures" the "fire coming towards us"? It seems that every law being proposed for all kinds of issues is to fend off some boogie man or "keep us safe". What I've discovered over the years is that the fire is typically just the smoke coming off the cigar of the fat cat whose going to get paid back when the law gets passed. I think legitimate fires will be addressed because they're obvious to all. When only half the country and half the people in office claim something is a fire, then it's just not a fire. |
|
IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status Pages: 1 2 3 4 | |||
Ricin Guy - TEA Party Member Pages: 1 2 |
| |||
|