Yeah, we call those "windsocks."Don't forget those of us who think they don't need to align themselves with any particular party, and have no interest in taking on a label so other people can judge them prematurely.
Your response makes no sense.Unlikely, if speaking of "tolerant republicans." Looney lefties with house avatars maybe.
Of course, there's the other side of the coin too, the guys who thinks Jesus says the government needs to pay their way through life, amen.
No. It's that some people are so desperate to avoid being "labeled" that they'll pretend they have complex combinations of views that aren't represented, when everything's pretty much already been diagrammed on spectra. To keep up the appearance, they'll vascillate between this and that, and the pragmatic upshot isn't that you have nuanced views, it's that you don't have enough conviction to fill a shot glass.No, you call them that. Because with your limited understanding of the world, anyone who isn't a crackpot ranting like a hobo on a street corner isn't committed enough.
He said "tolerant republicans." You are not a republican. You're not part of the defined subset, so using your own views as a counterpoint isn't valid. Someone who supports the (purported) republican position of personal economic liberty and systemic economic responsibility, but isn't comfortable with christian theocracy, wants gay people to be able to marry same as anyone else, and maybe thinks the war on drugs is a waste of time and money... that person has libertarian views. Contrary to snide comments from the peanut gallery, libertarianism isn't all about making sure nobody helps anybody.Your response makes no sense.
Oh, I thought you were responding to the one before it. In the "most americans" quote, I wasn't just referring to the Libertarian party as the only "third" option. There's the Green party, the Reform party, a wide selection of socialist parties... heck, there's even a Rent Is Too Damn High Party.Gas, you said-
"Most americans are idiots who prefer the illusory simplicity of a false dichotomy to having to actually put effort into educating themselves about voting."
To which I replied
"Unlikely, if speaking of "tolerant republicans." Looney lefties with house avatars maybe.
Of course, there's the other side of the coin too, the guys who thinks Jesus says the government needs to pay their way through life, amen."
I wasn't responding to him, I was responding to you. I don't have to be a Republican to be included in subset to comment on your overgeneralized phrase which had nothing to do with just the subset. Unless you're saying all Americans are Republican, which of course is stupid.
As for the rest of the crap you wrote, I have no idea what drug you are taking to get to THAT conclusion from what I said.
Believe me, if there was a strong progressive centrist party, that's where I would be sitting.Oh, I thought you were responding to the one before it. In the "most americans" quote, I wasn't just referring to the Libertarian party as the only "third" option. There's the Green party, the Reform party, a wide selection of socialist parties... heck, there's even a Rent Is Too Damn High Party.
Or if they've gotten through their "high-school politics" phase and come to realize that the libertarian party is unpractical and founded entirely on ideology.Or they find the Libertarian party just as distasteful as the Republicans and Democrats.
Well, you do hate everything.So, the only possible interpretation of a willingness to hear arguments objectively is that you're just trying to keep up appearances to some spectral viewership you apparently have? Huh. Well, damn me for not going out and finding the obscure party that exactly matches my points of view. Clearly, my unwillingness to align with such a party is a product of my vanity.
A funny thing happens if you hold the democrat and republican parties up to the same scrutiny.Or if they've gotten through their "high-school politics" phase and come to realize that the libertarian party is unpractical and founded entirely on ideology.
Heh, true enough.A funny thing happens if you hold the democrat and republican parties up to the same scrutiny.
And Incubus.Hey, high school never ends. Didn't you listen to Bowling For Soup?
Yes, because holding the individuals responsible would just be silly, wouldn't it.A funny thing happens if you hold the democrat and republican parties up to the same scrutiny.
Missed this post. The thing is that for most organizations the so called "ideology" is mostly lip service. They will stand in outrage about a topic while subtly doing that exact thing when no one is looking. Ron Paul is a good example of that, complaining about wasteful government spending while appropriating more earmarks than almost any other republican. Or the whole "Subsidizing green energy is wrong as it props up an unprofitable business!" while also voting for subsidies for oil companies.Politics founded and based on idealogy?! I'm shocked.
I think we're having two different conversations. What do you mean, here?Yes, because holding the individuals responsible would just be silly, wouldn't it.
Wouldn't it?
Scientists are so wishy-washy!So, the only possible interpretation of a willingness to hear arguments objectively is that you're just trying to keep up appearances to some spectral viewership you apparently have? Huh. Well, damn me for not going out and finding the obscure party that exactly matches my points of view. Clearly, my unwillingness to align with such a party is a product of my vanity.
That could be. I often find that while the parties are both responsible for the stupidity in politics we can't paint all of the Senators/Congressmen with the same brush. You and I both know having a (D), (R), or even an (I) in front of the name doesn't usually mean they are a carbon copy of each other. Well, usually anyways.I think we're having two different conversations. What do you mean, here?
Well, let's start over then. My original assertion was thatThat could be. I often find that while the parties are both responsible for the stupidity in politics we can't paint all of the Senators/Congressmen with the same brush. You and I both know having a (D), (R), or even an (I) in front of the name doesn't usually mean they are a carbon copy of each other. Well, usually anyways.
I see. You were going with the 'big tent' discussion.Well, let's start over then. My original assertion was that
1) Americans are mostly idiots
2) There are a lot of people who identify as republicans when the libertarian party actually fits them better, but, see 1.
3) Necronic asserts that the underlying ideology of the libertarian party makes it impractical
4) I imply that the underlying ideology of both mainstream parties SHOULD make them just as untenable, but here we are.
I know I make a lot of Jack Johnson/John Jackson statements in general, but that wasn't where I was going with this particular discussion.
Don't even get me started on how toxic "big tents" are to government and liberty.I see. You were going with the 'big tent' discussion.
That was pretty strange wasn't it. I mean, he said it with such longing. Like an old lover remembering past times.You can throw the so called 'tea party' candidates in there too, Necronic.
It was funny listening to the last This American Life and hearing John McCain say to Russ Feingold how much he missed having him in congress.
Hah! That's the vibe I got too! I thought at any moment he was going to start saying "These fucking guys, I tells ya".That was pretty strange wasn't it. I mean, he said it with such longing. Like an old lover remembering past times.