If ever there was an oxymoron, it would be "political conviction".
Johnson was GREAT and TERRIBLE at the same time.
I'm a leftist that wishes Obama was more leftist, but given the circumstance I don't think he's done terrible. I'd like more, but of what's available, he's still me best pick.
Ironically, except George W. Bush.
Yeah well, the country was so pissed off and brain screwed they would have attacked Canada if they had presented that as the country responsible.
Alas, for missed opportunities!
I was thinking of Andrew Johnson. I always think of Lyndon Johnson as LBJ, so I forget people don't necessarily know who I'm talking about.
You can when Bush failed to make Bin Laden a priority.
Or it could mean that you have political convictions on an issue by issue basis, rather than picking and extreme and going on autopilot.
I have convictions on an issue by issue basis - I am not a centrist. Of course, it's also my argument that "social conservatives" are actually neither...
"Centrist," at best, is a flawed term brought about by an incorrect methodology of limiting the political spectrum to a 1-dimensional line.
And lots of Dr. Pepper.
I'd rather be a weathervane directed by logic than a statue frozen by conviction.
That seems to run counter to your views that the individual is the controller of his own destiny. Frankly, it doesn't make any logical sense, either. I'm not going to discount a well-argued, well-presented viewpoint just because it belongs to a member of the "opposite" party--which strangely seems to be the root of your argument, too. Discounting things on the basis of some arbitrary allegiance is what I view as one of the core philosophical problems in this country right now, in fact.
I'm not talking about party affiliations, I'm talking about political ideologies - Liberal vs Conservative. "Centrist" isn't a political party. I have strong conservative convictions, thus I refuse to vote Republican. How ya like THEM apples?
Two and three dimensional shapes have a center too.
I figured this would be your reply. I understand Centrist is not a party, but the same thing applies to the labels of "Liberal" and "Conservative", or however many ideological axes you want to define. I have personal ideologies that may be met by a liberal idea, a conservative one, or a libertarian one. That doesn't make me a weathervane. That implies waffling. Hard schisms in ideological or party...it doesn't matter, they're just overlapping lenses.
I think we're talking about two different things - the overall ideology of "what's for the best" versus a-la carte opinions on the issues that put one at odds with what defines the two major parties, or stereotypically defines the labels "liberal" and "conservative.
Not if they're toroidal. Or, as you included by exclusion - things that are 4 or more dimensions.
Both at once is the best?
Perhaps you need to better define the space you are envisioning, then. I highly doubt it is toroidal, though.
Much as I hate the doctor who quote, it's a wibbley-wobbley torus of political-witical stuff.
Sounds a bit, you know, weathervane-y
There's a place on it for weathervanes.
Speaking of terminology, WOW did I need 3 read-throughs and a map to make it through that first sentence. Heh.
You call Reagan a "bastard offspring of goldwater," I'd say it would be closer to say "disowned." Goldwater hated what the republican party became under Reagan.
Yeah I actually raged at someone who used "post-structuralist" in a political discussion before. I think I basically plagiarised the good will hunting speech and told him to get over the BS philosophy they taught him in his first year at law school. It really is a good term for what I'm talking about though (it was good when he used it too, but I had just seen good will hunting).
That's true for some voters, but even for them I would rather have the dispassionate voter than the fanatical ones we see so much of today.
Well yeah, Reagan was like that "other son" that he didn't like to talk about at parties.
Worst president ever.
Is this some kind of joke that I'm not getting? Neither the laziness nor the millions makes sense to me.
