Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (54942)	5/28/2009 9:07:22 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

"My challenege to you. Name just one major issue of the 20th century where the conservatives were right and the liberals were wrong." I hope you don't think I am trying to persuade you to switch sides or that the side you are on is wrong. I don't see any reason for a person who sees the good being done on their side of things to switch. After all, in football a tight end shouldn't switch to be a defensive tackle just because he sees the defensive line as doing a lot of good. His goal should be to improve his speed, agility, and catching skills. "Just one issue!! You will not find one!" Any position can only be measured by how nearly it approaches perfection. All have room for criticism, and as circumstance changes the solutions of one generation become the problems of the next. Which is why we can take a perspective on most issues and criticize or support depending on the perspective you take and the current conditions. With that in mind, I can think of reasons to support or criticise conservative platforms or liberal platforms. There isn't any absolute right and wrong in party politics, except from an extremist perspective.

To: koan who wrote (54942)	5/28/2009 12:03:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

Name just one major issue of the 20th century where the conservatives were right and the liberals were wrong What do you mean by right? Morally right, practically right, constitutionally right? On the side that eventually won the debate? Also on many issues there where Republicans and Democrats on both sides. The question is vague, but I'll answer anyway. Support for lower taxes, and lower marginal rates (although some Republicans increased taxes, and Kennedy cut them). Support for treating races equally under the law. (It was mostly the Democrats who opposed this when it meant removing restrictions against minorities in the past, and its mostly Democrats who oppose it now seeking affirmative action, equality of result etc. rather than equal treatment under the law.) Support for the idea of limited government (but I'm not sure you can really count this one, since so many Republicans talk about limited government and then proceed to expand it quickly, the more recent Bush perhaps being the best example, so it might be said that both parties where wrong.) Support for the idea of opposing communism and the Soviet empire (but there where quite a few Democrats who joined in this effort) The right wing doesn't even understand that gays are born that way and as such the CONSTITUION requires they be treated equally under the law. Technically they are treated equally under the law now. A gay man or a straight man can marry a gay or straight woman. A gay woman or a straight woman can marry a gay or straight man. There is no constitutional requirement to change that. The argument is more one of fairness which is largely subjective, but arguably equal treatment under the law can be unfair. (The classic example is a law that forbids the rich and the poor from begging, both face the same restriction, but the rich can still do what they want or need to do, the poor perhaps not.) A side note - I don't really consider the issue to be "gay/same sex marriage". Its "state recognition of and benefits to gay/same sex marriages". Two people of the same sex can have a ceremony, consider themselves to be spouses, expect others to consider the same, live together, have a sexual and romantic relationship etc. If the state tried to forbid that it would be a major abuse, and I would be totally against the politicians pushing those restrictions. On the recognition issue, I've shifted from being against it, to being pretty neutral, only not wanting the courts to invent or misapply some constitutional principle to settle the issue by judicial fiat. If the people and their elected representatives want to recognize and provide benefits to such relationships I won't oppose it.