For My Good Buddy, Taks

[Nick_i_am]

I dunno though, a lot of right wing dudes I have come across CAN be annoyingly self-rightious.

 

Not that the other side is any better either, just in different ways.

 

Of course, what do I know, i'm just eurotrash!

[thepixiesrock]

Wait. I though by "right wing" he meant the vigilante crime fighter group "Right Wing". Sorry about that.

[Nick_i_am]

....he didn't?

[taks]

I dunno though, a lot of right wing dudes I have come across CAN be annoyingly self-rightious.

any ideology is annoying to those with a differing ideology. left wingers are self righteous, too, saying those on the right don't have any compassion or don't care about civil rights, etc. it's merely opinion of position.

 

taks

[Nick_i_am]

Yeah, but i'm not a part of either, and left-wingers are just as annoying, just in different ways.

[kumquatq3]

taks is often correct

 

that is all

[taks]

i wish... i certainly like to think i am. but who doesn't think themselves correct more often than not?

 

uh, what is the chimpocalypse?

 

taks

[WITHTEETH]

Hi Taks. i didn't know if this was relevant to the topic but i have a question if you have the time.

 

My question is why choose to be a right winger? I myself don't like to categorize myself as anything, but i typically do fall in the left side. I guess its because of my utilitarian perspective of finding compassion. That we should do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, and sometimes that means not benefitting ourselves.

 

We are all connected one way or another, and effect eachother dramatically. The more crime, less education and worse health care for the young citizens the worse off we will be later it appears.

 

The right wing wants less goverment, and i can see why. We obviously have trouble running our own goverments, but look at haliburton, its run like ****. What im trying to get to is that we need a goverment, and i would like to see these goverments used for the greater good becuase how else can we get everybody involved? To solve great problems we need a great many of people, and what better way is there then our own goverments?

 

So what is your opinion Taks?

[taks]

My question is why choose to be a right winger? I myself don't like to categorize myself as anything, but i typically do fall in the left side.

why don't you go back and read some of my posts in this thread. i'm not right-wing.

 

for the record, it is next to impossible to be a "right-winger" if you're an atheist.

 

I guess its because of my utilitarian perspective of finding compassion. That we should do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, and sometimes that means not benefitting ourselves.

good for you. uh, no sarcasm intended.

 

We are all connected one way or another, and effect eachother dramatically.  The more crime, less education and worse health care for the young citizens the worse off we will be later it appears.

yeah, and unfortunately, any time government provides these services, we have less education, worse health care and overall worse off conditions. it's not a surprise that the most prosperous countries in the world are the most capitalist. even those few standouts, such as oil rich nations, make their money to fund the socialism off of capitalism.

 

The right wing wants less goverment, and i can see why. We obviously have trouble running our own goverments, but look at haliburton, its run like ****.

it is seemingly having problems.

 

What im trying to get to is that we need a goverment, and i would like to see these goverments used for the greater good becuase how else can we get everybody involved?

to pawn a phrase off of gromnir... govments is like ska bands... the less you hear of them, the better off you are.

 

my point? governments cannot accomodate everyone. the same reasons pure democracies don't work. the will of the majority will always leave someone out. is it fair to trample minorities' rights to favor the majority? rights are rights, they are all applied equally. the only method that has ever allowed this involves small government (with little or no control over business) and a capitalist economy. what people get out of the system is then directly proportional to what they put in. the more you put in, the more you get back (hard work, education, etc. returns high pay).

 

To solve great problems we need a great many of people, and what better way is there then our own goverments?

phew, i wouldn't even know where to begin with this. yeah, we need a lot of people, but government just can't do it. government is strictly there to protect us. nothing more, nothing less. that's why the US Constitution was written the way it was, not to tell us what our rights are, but to limit the powers of the government (many have argued that the Bill of Rights was actually unnecessary as any powers and rights not explicitly given to the federal government were reserved for the people... i'm half and half on that idea).

 

we could get into a huge discussion on why, but i don't have time at the moment (the day is done, time to go home and eat).

 

So what is your opinion Taks?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hehe, i'm probably the most opinionated person on this board, if you don't already know that, you're not reading my posts entirely.

 

glad you asked, however. but stop calling me a right-winger!

 

taks

Edited March 31, 2006 by taks

[kumquatq3]

i wish... i certainly like to think i am.  but who doesn't think themselves correct more often than not?

 

uh, what is the chimpocalypse?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not really following this one, but I don't think I nessasarily agree with you here. Just venting support for having a unpopular position.

 

as for the chimpocalypse, it's when the chimps rise up against humanity

[tarna]

Thread pruned of form flames. Knock it off guys.

[taks]

Just venting support for having a unpopular position.

if the others' had actually taken the time to read my position, i think they would have noticed that it isn't much different than theirs. all i ever noted was 1) you need to have both sides of any story before drawing conclusions (i.e. the whole innocent till proven guilty) and 2) if they are guilty, they are caught, and should be punished. ???

 

pretty simple, yet somehow kaftan thinks i'm casting the "one side" as liberal to poison the well. never said such a thing, nor did i even imply it. the fact of the matter is that he actually committed a fallacy by offering a straw man, i.e. a weaker argument that is correct in that it is wrong to commit such an ad-hominem. unfortunately, i did not, so the straw man wasn't even complete.

 

commissar thinks i discredited the pentagon report. didn't do that, either. all i said was the article was one sided (why didn't they follow up on cheney's comments?) and waxman has an axe to grind (uh, this is politics, and he does have an axe to grind).

 

really, how hard is it to actually read what i wrote and comment on that, rather than misrepresenting what i'm saying so blatantly? these two automatically assume my position and no matter what i write, they read it as their preconceived notions about my "right-wing" viewpoint.

 

shameful at best.

 

particularly when i agreed with nearly every conclusion they had other than "guilty until proven innocent."

 

as for the chimpocalypse, it's when the chimps rise up against humanity

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i figured that, just thought that there was something you knew that i was unaware of. i.e. the chimps are organizing and we better watch out!

 

taks