<p>“with the current and future make up of the court, I can see women’s rights getting further eroded”</p>
<p>especially the right of pre-born women to be aborted.</p>
<p>The living also have rights you know, yes we do, the living who get sick, get abused, get beat, get discriminated against, who get bad medicine, get shot, go to war, get hurt by bad products, don’t get an education, get raped, don’t get hired becuase of skin color or “lifestyle”, don;t get medical care, drink dirty water, have bad air, have dirty rivers and lakes, yeah, don’t worry about the ones that are here, and their lives</p>
<p>citygirlsmom</p>
<p>Well I can’t make you trust the numbers. They’re from the Congressional Budget Office. </p>
<p>I don’t recall where I said that the federal government had “sooo much money”. I think I said that federal tax receipts were up 15.4% over 2004, and that the first eight months showed an increase in tax receipts of $ 187 million. Obviously the 2003 tax cuts were a great boon to the economy.</p>
<p>Why then is cutting taxes wrong in a time of war? Why is it ridiculous? Taxes were cut and revenue to the federal government went up significantly as a direct result. If the taxes weren’t cut, the revenues to the federal government wouldn’t have gone up as much as they did.</p>
<p>Lauras,</p>
<p>I do understand that you think that I would be better served by your beliefs than I am by my own; your intentions, I suppose, are noble and good. However, I think you may be creatively misreading my posts (something of a compliment). </p>
<p>I understand that, as you say, you managed to convert your neighbors child. Though that has religious/faith-based overtones Im sure you view such conversions as rational/scientific, in some intellectually athletic way (even while summoning up visions of the dark side). I myself am religious (by common definition), so I understand the feeling and desire to save others by sharing your own experience of life and the good life (Scott Nearing, the author of the well known book “The Good Life” is a distant relative of mine); however, my religious views do not allow for evangelical conversion far from it: in my tradition its considered very bad form indeed. </p>
<p>Still, I understand your political desire to evangelize as well as I understand those students at Patrick Henry Collegeall hope (as Leibniz would say) for the best of all possible worlds, they simply differ on what that would mean.</p>
<p>I was raised to believe that it is ok to hold seemingly contrary views, both politically and theologically (think of Emerson in Self Reliance); the best we can hope for is to be good people and around good people, regardless of our/their views/faiths. Ive come to think that peoples beliefs come from a place unavailable to polemical persuasionthat is, if they are beliefs, rather than group identities like Republican, Democrat, socialist, communist, anarchist; these of course usually have more to do with personal identity than heartfelt belief. </p>
<p>Politically, Im what is referred to as pro-lifenot because I want to oppress my own gender but because no ideology has ever made me feel that a fetus is of a different species than a human being
I cant help that, you cant make yourself believe other than what you believe: its not opinion, and not necessarily truth, its belief.
Im also against the death penalty since I believe human life is sacred; again, I believe that.
I was also opposed to the Iraq war. My mother lived (barely) through the Iran/Iraq war. She lost both friends and family and was accustomed to bombs going off around her. My view is personal: I do not need an ideology to reinforce it. I now want things to go well in Iraq and pray that the president and his administration are on the right course, I do not hope for their failure because I initially disagreed with their actions
in the end I think and hope that our family in Iran will benefit from a successful outcome.</p>
<p>Youre right to say that in 36 years I will have grown (hopefully for the better, but experience tells me that this is not always the case–I’m pretty sure HItler, Stalin and Mao were a little more tolerable at 17 than they were at 53); however, I suspect it will be based on my own true experiences not the political persuasions of those who are so inclined to change my thinking to their own.</p>
<p>On a personal note, it seems to me that too often those who self-identify as liberals come across as hysterical; frequently, they dont simply offer an opinion within a discussion but rather a litany of opinions in a hope, I assume, to plow you under in a mountain of information that could never be adequately, discreetly and sincerely addressed (or they are, in fact, simply hysterical). </p>
<p>As to my love for poetry and religion, to me they are essentially the same thing, I do not believe one can be adequately done without the other: but either one, even as an orphan, is better than politics.</p>
<p>
Definitions of democracy on the Web:</p>
<p>
Do you notice any key attributes about democracy? Things like “elected representative” and “majority rule”. Now contrast that with how liberals view the role of the unelected courts to make “rules”.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, I must compliment you. You express yourself very well and your posts made me think about a number of issues in a new way. Thank you.</p>
<p>Yes…that was some piece. Almost poetry. I for one find it extremely encouraging that such an articulate free thinker will be making the “diversity” of her opinion felt at Dartmouth in September.</p>
<p>FS,</p>
<p>Certainly you would agree that a tendency to get hysterical and argue poorly is a trait that spans the political specturm. Just yesterday I was in a waiting room where I had to listen to talk radio–it was one of the conservative political shows, Rush Linbaugh or Bill O’Reilly–and what got me down was not the content of the commentray (although I disagreed with most of it) but the banality of the rhetoric; it was just illogical and overheated and sad. This is why I don’t like Rush Limbaugh; it’s also why I don’t like Michael Moore. Unfortunately, their equivalents are to be found right here at CC (at least when the political threads devolve).</p>
<p>One the other hand, complacency is also bad…</p>
<p>I too must again express my appreciation for FountainSirens reasoned and effective style of communication. She will indeed be an asset to the student body at Dartmouth! Though we dont agree on all issues, it would be a pleasure to discuss our differing opinions because she communicates with grace and intelligence rather than hysteria and ad hominem attacks. So many on these boards seem to think that disagreeing with them is a sign of mental deficiency or sinister motives. I am enormously impressed that a 17 year old possesses such maturity and eloquence. Your parents must be very proud of you, FountainSiren, and I wish you the best as you continue your studies.</p>
<p>It seems that you choose to criticize liberals, yet, I see no comments saying the conservatives pundents act in the same manner, which they do…</p>
<p>So as a Hysterical Liberal, I would hope that you would look at both sides…It is very nice how articulate you are, with that I agree, but I find hidden digs in your comments. That, I find disingenuous.</p>
<p>And right now, in Iraq, the Constitution is being written, and women’s right could be eroded with regards to divorce, property rights, freedom of movement, etc. I hope I wasn’t too hysterical.</p>
<p>And yes, people get passionate when they see rights being lost, freedoms being threatened, and their patriotism questioned. Someone saying we liberals don’t believe in democracy does indeed get the blood boiling.</p>
<p>If you read about how the Constitution was written, the passion, the debates, the arguments, the sniping, the fighting, well, a little passion does no harm- the Revolutionists who started this country were often excited, inflammitory, rabble rousers, and fighters…that is what our country was founded on, not polite discourse…</p>
<p>Rational thought is great, but please do not put down those with passion and a little hysteria.</p>
<p>Oh come on CGM. You find hidden digs in FountainSiren’s posts? Guess you must have missed the not-so-hidden digs you’ve lobbed at her in your posts. I find that pretty disingenuous myself.</p>
<p>I certainly agree with you that we should all be willing to “look at both sides” but I’ve read this thread several times and note that few really are willing to do just that. There is a remarkable tendency here not to listen to or consider other opinions when they come from people who don’t agree with us. That would be bad enough on it’s own, but the tendency to put people down for having opinions that don’t match ours is out of hand. </p>
<p>Lest you think I am aiming subtle jabs at liberals, I also agree with spoonjy that the tendency to get hysterical and argue poorly is a trait that spans the political spectrum, especially among certain members here on CC. A little bit of restraint before replying to differing views would go a long way. </p>
<p>All the more reason to complement FountainSiren for remaining calm, atticulate, and willing to consider differing points of view before she replies. Many adults could learn a lesson from her about effective debate, in my opinion.</p>
<p>I wasn’t trying to hide anything. But when liberals are called hysterical, well, I must comment. </p>
<p>From FS:
On a personal note, it seems to me that too often those who self-identify as liberals come across as hysterical; frequently, they dont simply offer an opinion within a discussion but rather a litany of opinions in a hope, I assume, to plow you under in a mountain of information that could never be adequately, discreetly and sincerely addressed (or they are, in fact, simply hysterical). </p>
<p>To call a whole group of people hysterical shows a bias, as well trying to insult. Not a particulary good debate strategy. Why not talk about both sides being a little hysterical at times. Nope, just ones to disparage liberals once again.</p>
<p>And, I stand by my point that passion is good. A little hysteria is good. A little concern is good. If everyone just talked, well, nothing would change. </p>
<p>Right now, it is wonderful we can all sit around our computers debating rights, freedom and democracy, while women around the world are losing rights. I did change the topic sure, but polite discourse, while beneficial, changes little.</p>
<p>Passion, hysteria, frustration in the real world are needed. And so, a few posters come across as hysterical. Great!! I would rather so fisty debate anyday.</p>
<p>CGM, you may not want my advice but I’ll give it anyway: The surest way to lose an argument is to start attacking your opponent on issues that have nothing to do with the subject being debated. The second surest is to react emotionally when your opponent does the same. :)</p>
<p>But when liberals are called hysterical, well, I must comment. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Does it go both ways? You didn’t seem to comment when spoonjy and I noted that hysteria is not limited to one side of the political equation. Guess you don’t feel as passionately about commenting when conservatives or moderates are accused of being hysterical.</p>
<p>And, there in lies the rub: we all have a tendency to defend only those we agree with and to dismiss (or worse, attack) those we don’t agree with. I have found that there are indeed many sides of every argument and that often if I listen carefully I see more similarities than differences between my opinions and another’s, even when we seem to have no common ground on the surface. THAT, to me, is where effective political discourse and change really begins: by finding and building upon our commonalities, not our arguing about our differences.</p>
<p>Passion and reason need not be mutually exclusive. Think of the Declaration of Independence, a document that is both masterfully argued (as an appeal to reason) and deeply felt. I prefer my intellectual discourse informed, well reasoned, and passionate–just not visceral. Don’t get me wrong. I love visceral pleasures. I just like to get mine on the basketball court, in the bedroom, or over a full slab at Arthur Bryant’s–not by ranting and baiting on message boards, especially on ones like these that are otherwise intelligent and interesting. </p>
<p>And now I’ve got another problem: I’m hungry.</p>
<p>Passion and reason need not be mutually exclusive>></p>
<p>Agree 100% Spoonyj. But emotionalism usually doesn’t co-exist well with reason…on any side of the coin. :)</p>
<p>I have never in my posts discussed anyones passions being wrong. I have never in my posts called anyone hysterical. I have never in my posts said that conservatives were hysterical. I have never disparaged anyone for having their own beliefs. I do may darndest to try and change minds, sure. </p>
<p>I usually limit my comments to the arguments at hand- the judge, the war, the court, the topics at hand.</p>
<p>I just get angry when posters here are called names.</p>
<p>Yeah, some posters will call make fun of all kinds of groups- from liberals, to republicans, to democrats, to ditto heads, to franken fiends, but its in the third person, not a direct hit at other posters…with that I must take offense</p>
<p>If a poster called FS or any other poster including FoundingFather a name, I would call them on it if I caught it.</p>
<p>I called FS disengenous, so I guess I made a direct comment, but to let it go would have been being called hysterical okay. </p>
<p>If a poster chooses to go that direction, they have opened themselves up for comment.</p>
<p>I did.</p>
<p>Discussing varying opinions, that is, opinions based upon facts, is one thing, but discussing various beliefs, such as religious beliefs, in a dispassionate way is another. I wonder how to engage in calm debate a pro-lifer, for example, who derives this view based upon religious beliefs. One of the most worrisome issues for me is the current movement to break down the separation of church and state. Abortion, to me, is just one area infused with religion. Injecting creationism into the public school curriculm is another. And insertion of the legislature and executive into family decision-making on end-of-life issues is another. Where will this end?</p>
<p>Odyssey, I agree: it’s hard enough to have an intelligent discussion when someone is already convinced about their point of view. Add in religion as “justification” and it becomes impossible.</p>