GarfieldJL Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 Considering you're from Boston, I wouldn't be surprised if you think most of America is far-right... And yes that's a stereotype people in the Midwest have developed about people on the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Considering you're from Boston, I wouldn't be surprised if you think most of America is far-right... And yes that's a stereotype people in the Midwest have developed about people on the cost. So, you agree its a stereotype yet you're still going to label him under it? Now that takes guts, especially from someone who is adamant on their belief that California is left-wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 So, you agree its a stereotype yet you're still going to label him under it? After reading his comments, yes he fits the stereotype. Now that takes guts, especially from someone who is adamant on their belief that California is left-wing. No I think the people in the big cities of California particularly San Fransisco is largely made up of far left individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 why do you post here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 why do you post here shuttup youre just a coastal elite youre not a real american Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 After reading his comments, yes he fits the stereotype. Just make sure that your label maker doesn't run out of paper, otherwise you wont be able to debate. No I think the people in the big cities of California particularly San Fransisco is largely made up of far left individuals. Big cities of california? San Fran is pretty left, but the other major cities like San Diego, LA, Sacra, etc are pretty conservative, particularly San Diego. So, you may want to revise your post to be "I think the people in the big city of San Fran" instead of calling all of California San Francisco. Oh, right, I'm wrong. Its not like I live in California or anything. why do you post here I second this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 At least: far more than I ever wanted to see appointed, anyway. I suspect that even one would have been too many for you. @TA--I suspect that many of CA's citizens are more conservative than not (judging by the reaction to prop 8), but the state legislature and the oft overridden 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are predominantly liberal. Face it, no matter how "conservative" CA may be, it's predominantly ruled by liberals. I wouldn't even say that your governator is a conservative, just a mostly liberal republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 @TA--I suspect that many of CA's citizens are more conservative than not (judging by the reaction to prop 8), but the state legislature and the oft overridden 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are predominantly liberal. Face it, no matter how "conservative" CA may be, it's predominantly ruled by liberals. I wouldn't even say that your governator is a conservative, just a mostly liberal republican. Liberal republican sums up the state pretty well. We're bipolar with our voting. Other than San Fran, when you go into the major coast cities they are pretty conservative due to Navy and Airforce outposts. Drive away from the cities and it gets more left/liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Actually: on the political spectrum, I consider myself a liberal-leaning moderate independent... a realist (though many might just as easily say: "cynic."...) and amused by how strongly some people take their stances, since my own viewpoint has changed many times over the years depending on the situation, and when I see new information that makes me question my beliefs. I typically vote on issues rather than for platforms or along preset party lines. For instance: I'm pro gay marriage (simply since it doesn't concern me or my life one way or the other, I'm too apathetic to ever bother to stage a resistance...) but I'm also fairly libertarian when it comes to gun control. Basically: I want the government to stay out of people's personal lives and concentrate on all the things that might make our lives better. I met, supported, and probably would have voted for the McCain that ran in '99/ 2000... and most likely would have this time around, had I saw him again in '08... and had he chosen almost anyone but Sarah Palin. Personally: I'm largely apolitical... though I follow it to a certain extent. I do sometimes like playing Devil's Advocate in threads like this... especially when someone makes what I feel is a sweeping statement... and one that goes against everything that life has taught me about human nature and group dynamics. (You'll have to decide if I'm taking the viewpoints I have in this thread because that is what I really believe... or if I'm just offering an opposing viewpoint for sake of discussion.) Republican; Democrat; Conservative; Liberal... People in power all behave exactly the same... and the people out of power react to it in the same manners they always have. In my lifetime, it has been the same in every administration I have observed (I guess starting with the Ford Presidency... though I doubt I was really paying very close attention back then. ) I'm not sure if I fall into the stereotype or not. Personally: I think I'd much rather prefer to fall into a surround-type. (I AM a big advocate of 5.1, 7.1, or more channel audio. That's a cause I CAN really get behind.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I suspect that even one would have been too many for you. @TA--I suspect that many of CA's citizens are more conservative than not (judging by the reaction to prop 8), but the state legislature and the oft overridden 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are predominantly liberal. Face it, no matter how "conservative" CA may be, it's predominantly ruled by liberals. I wouldn't even say that your governator is a conservative, just a mostly liberal republican. It depends where you go out here. People here are nutz. Ahnuld? He's just whatever suits him. Though I do applaud his quick decisive action in 2007 regarding the Angora fire. Probably in part because his vacation mansion is less than 1 hr away from it. Amongst other things, to be fair, though. Liberal republican sums up the state pretty well. We're bipolar with our voting. Other than San Fran, when you go into the major coast cities they are pretty conservative due to Navy and Airforce outposts. Drive away from the cities and it gets more left/liberal. Agreed. For as liberal as some places claim to be, they sure have it down for the have/have-not capitalism. D.I.N.O-R.I.N.O land. It's a sprawl and a pigsty at that. Liberals and Conservatives live pretty much on top of one another. Scatterbrained people between them. Some rural areas and small towns are conservative as well to make up for SF. Central valley? It's pretty much a ****ing nowhere's ville out here. Most don't care about politics. Ruder drivers here than anywhere else I've ever been. And for garbage property anywhere in CA, it's pretty damn expensive. Basically: I want the government to stay out of people's personal lives and concentrate on all the things that might make our lives better. On that we agree. However, I rather suspect that senators are moving in their mindsets towards such that individual freedoms will soon be considered to be the root cause of the problems we have. Just something to think on. I guess I stay up on the politics only to a point. Informed just enough to see if someone is trying to screw around with me on taxes, etc. or to see if something will impinge on a right or freedom. Like you I vote on issues more. Cynical similarly, but perhaps seeing things differently. Though I probably do have some issues I'm middle or left on; Overall more to the right, though. In general: There are some things many will never see eye to eye with me on since I have co-owned and managed a business before, where others have not. Self employment makes one see things a little different. However I will admit many see the $$$ more than the big picture. Whereas I go more for responsibility, common sense, and not being a bastard to your employees/clients. Self regulating. No material reason to be the good guy, but there is a reciprocation of sorts and a trust level you establish since most people are good. Something you can't buy with money nor can you get back if you ever **** it up. I am wary for bastards in general, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 In general: There are some things many will never see eye to eye with me on since I have co-owned and managed a business before, where others have not. Self employment makes one see things a little different. However I will admit many see the $$$ more than the big picture. Whereas I go more for responsibility, common sense, and not being a bastard to your employees/clients. Self regulating. No material reason to be the good guy, but there is a reciprocation of sorts and a trust level you establish since most people are good. Something you can't buy with money nor can you get back if you ever **** it up. I am wary for bastards in general, though. If people could be that responsible and self-regulating, there would be no need for any government. Since they can't be trusted to, there is the need for regulatory agencies... and the tax money to fund them, unfortunately. I agree with many of my libertarian friends that the federal government is currently far too unwieldy... but I guess I'm liberal in the sense that I think we still need federal departments to cover the things that people and local and state governments can't or won't do successfully. (With the counter-argument being that the feds really don't do it any better... so it's just tax money thrown away.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share Posted April 14, 2009 If people could be that responsible and self-regulating, there would be no need for any government. Since they can't be trusted to, there is the need for regulatory agencies... and the tax money to fund them, unfortunately. What happens when it is government regulations that caused the mess in the first place? Government Regulations forced some banks to make those risky loans in the first place. I agree with many of my libertarian friends that the federal government is currently far too unwieldy... but I guess I'm liberal in the sense that I think we still need federal departments to cover the things that people and local and state governments can't or won't do successfully. (With the counter-argument being that the feds really don't do it any better... so it's just tax money thrown away.) I agree there needs to be some regulations, the problem is what do you do when regulations are what forced businesses into the mess in the first place, and then big Government blames the businesses. Some of the businesses are responsible for their own mess, but some of them can partially blame Government Regulations. http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/ I wouldn't use this except for the fact the audio/video is something of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Expecting businesses to self-regulate fairly and successfully is also a proven recipe for disaster. As with most things in this world, there is probably a middle-ground solution that will work best... but the problem comes in getting the 2 polar-opposite sides to find the compromise point and agree to give it a try. In this instance, perhaps: Less regulations... but REALLY enforce the ones we come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted April 14, 2009 Author Share Posted April 14, 2009 Expecting businesses to self-regulate fairly and successfully is also a proven recipe for disaster. As with most things in this world, there is probably a middle-ground solution that will work best... but the problem comes in getting the 2 polar-opposite sides to find the compromise point and agree to give it a try. In this instance, perhaps: Less regulations... but REALLY enforce the ones we come up with. And if they are bad regulations, and also the people that directly benefitted from causing this mess are the people that are currently in office: that includes President Obama, Barney Frank, Senator Chris Dodd, etc. An article of interest http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/deputy-at-state-reported-bonus/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 [Reagan]There you go again![/Reagan] Just can't help yourself? Well... while the Dems are hardly blameless in all this... it is important to note that the Republicans did have majority control of all the branches of Government from 2000 to 2006, (and control of both houses during the greater part of the Clinton era...) and the bubble that recently burst setting this all in motion had to be building as far back as that. In fact, I remember some analysts were forecasting this recession (or at the very least, the burst of the housing bubble which would have dire consequences across the board...) before the Democrats even took control in the '06 election. It would be convenient to lay the blame on the liberals only... but to me, that would be like the bus driver blaming the passengers for an accident. (While they may have been a distraction, he's ultimately the one in control.) And I'm sure that if a little digging was done, I'm certain it could be found that folks who personally benefited from this could be found across partisan lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 ^^^^ Great post. Interesting how some people struggle to connect cause and effect, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted April 15, 2009 Author Share Posted April 15, 2009 Well... while the Dems are hardly blameless in all this... it is important to note that the Republicans did have majority control of all the branches of Government from 2000 to 2006, (and control of both houses during the greater part of the Clinton era...) and the bubble that recently burst setting this all in motion had to be building as far back as that. It is also important to note that the Democrats fillabustered the increase in regulations in 2003, 2005, 2006, and said there wasn't a problem in 2007. In fact, I remember some analysts were forecasting this recession (or at the very least, the burst of the housing bubble which would have dire consequences across the board...) before the Democrats even took control in the '06 election. The Republicans never had a fillabusterproof majority, and while there are some corrupt Republicans out there, the people that stood to gain financially through all of this were Democrats. It would be convenient to lay the blame on the liberals only... but to me, that would be like the bus driver blaming the passengers for an accident. (While they may have been a distraction, he's ultimately the one in control.) That's a bad analogy, there is something called seperation of powers. And I'm sure that if a little digging was done, I'm certain it could be found that folks who personally benefited from this could be found across partisan lines. Possibly, but Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were #1 and #2 respectively for their entire terms in Federal Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Not filibusterer-proof perhaps... but for anything new to pass they had to certainly sign off on it to some extent. The Dems simply didn't have the votes. And they certainly had time and political muscle to legislate reforms if they had really wanted to. The "Contract with America" election was 1994. During that time many pre-existing regulations were done away with. The Republican majority could have overhauled the system on their watch. They didn't pick their fights carefully enough, then. To lay the entire mess at the feet of the Democrats might be fun... but it's simply not realistic. There's plenty of blame to go all around. More than enough for everyone who has held office for the last couple of decades. At best, you can only paint the majority of Republicans as being bullied and powerless against the mean old Democrat minority, or totally asleep at the wheel for the last 13 years. And that's not how I remember it. The Conservatives steamrolled a lot of legislation through over the protests of the Liberals when they wanted to. Especially in the first couple of years after the 2000 election. But from my point of view: both parties are totally corrupt, and EVERY politician on the planet is completely, 100% full of ****. You can paint the current administration as badly as you like. I mostly agree with you. I just honestly don't believe the other side is truly any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 But from my point of view: both parties are totally corrupt, and EVERY politician on the planet is completely, 100% full of ****. You can paint the current administration as badly as you like. I mostly agree with you. Oh, how cynical. I wish I could say I disagreed. Okay, maybe not ALL, but too damn many nonetheless. Quick question: how often does the libretarian in you throttle the lib and vice versa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 It's the reason I have to stay apolitical for the most part... otherwise I'd go crazy. Let's put it this way: I'm libertarian on personal values issues... and liberal on social-causes issues. I don't mind big-government spending... as long as you leave all my personal freedoms intact while you do it. It's a delicate balancing act, to say the least. I don't recommend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 Check out the latest Obama appointee that apparently has been implicated in an Illinois Governor Pay-To-Play scheme. So his administration is made up of tax cheats, people that demand bribes, etc. Does this remind anyone else of Chicago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 garfield have you been to chicago before or is your idea of chicago the untouchables + computers i'm just curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Heh... I'm from Boston... where one of the most powerful men in politics here is brothers with one of the FBI's most wanted mob bosses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 This "Chicago" thing is an irrational pejorative that he's likely parroting from Limbaugh or some other such hate-media. Its interesting and demonstrative of the irrational and, perhaps, deficient cognitive function of conservatives since such a rhetorical pejorative is so easily spread as a meme among followers of Limbaugh and other such talking-heads. The purpose is to create irrational hatred and fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 garfield have you been to chicago before or is your idea of chicago the untouchables + computers i'm just curious You're trying to tell me Chicago isn't one of the most corrupt cities in the United States? @ SkinWalker I actually got it off of an FBI agent's commentary concerning Chicago and Illinois in general, I have been to Illinois thank you kindly and as you've stated you don't pay much attention to politics so I believe I'm more of an expert in this area than you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.