I think both sides are for better punctuation.
And families. I haven’t heard many discuss abolishing those.
-Joe
I dunno – some right-wingers (especially Libertarians) object to that on principle. As, of course, do all Communists of the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist tradition.
Elected officials should act like “public servants” and not royalty.
That “seperation of church and state”, does not mean a “divorce”.
All personal freedoms of choice, do not need to be made a felony, to keep someone from “wanting it”.
And, :smack: if I here one more anchor person start a sentence with "recent studies suggest, insert comment here, is bad for you, which leads to people advocating “it” be banned, or made illegal, so we can all live longer healthier lives, I will shoot myself, (oh wait that is illegall).
You really think all of those are things on which all on the Left and Right can agree?!
Eliminate pork. Or at the very least make proposed earmarks visible to all, and in a timely manner.
Agreed, especially the second point. Eliminating it all together is probably not possible though, the wheels of Congress are greased with pork.
To deviate from the OP a little, there are a huge number of things that both the left & right agree on. Most things in fact, in general principles and even in acceptable, workable details. Kind of why America has prospered for 200+ years. And in the not-too-distant past this was very clear. Nobody really gave it too much thought.
The problem is that, in recent times, only the most polarizing and shrill political ideologies get reported. And, in keeping with this being GD, I blame the far left for this more than the far right. For the simple fact that regardless of whether you hate him or not GW Bush is not, by any stretch of things, a far right Republican. In fact, compared to Reagan, Bush is barely even a centrist. The predominance of the extreme left wing in the Democratic party is not due to any upsurge in the extreme right wing of the Republican. It’s due, IMO, to primarily two things: the two-term presidency of Bill Clinton, and 9/11.
Because Clinton definitely was to the left of center. Not so much in policies, in policy Clinton was mostly a centrist, populist, caretaker president. But in image he was embraced by the extreme left wing. And he was without a doubt the very first president to be embraced by them. And his resounding re-election, the first Dem since FDR, greatly reinforced this.
And then 9/11 happened. To be very blunt, 9/11 is dealt with by the extreme left wing in one way and one way only: guilt. They blame themselves, they blame the US. Not the people who actually committed it. Because to the far left it is an impossibility that the poor, misunderstood, oppressed brown people can be blamed for anything let alone something like that. Consequently they direct all their anger and hatred over 9/11 (actually all their extra anger & hatred) towards Bush and the Republicans, their natural enemies.
Combined with this is the fact that because we are now so flooded with instant news and media via the internet, the old-school non-instantaneous media (network news, newspapers, magazines) have had to concentrate on only the most sensational, extreme stories to boost ratings/circulation. And when there aren’t enough things like that to report (which is just about always) they report ordinary news in the most extreme and sensationalized way possible.
Suffice it to say (which is a little moot at this point :)) that America is not as divided as is constantly portrayed. A news story stating that we’re on the verge of civil war is just an example of this sensationalized, outrageous, headline-grabbing news media.
Much like Bush; a centrist who was embraced by the extreme right wing.
Nitpick: the first is a freedom, the second is a right. A right, as you recall, is some action that one may require of the government; a freedom is an action that the government may not restrict. As marriage is a license and, thus, only made meaningful by its recognition (and enforcement) by the government, gay marriage is a right.
Republicans traditionally prefer freedoms to rights and the Democrats, rights to freedom. (Note: that is an extreme generalization.)
By what measure is Bush NOT a far right Republican? It wasn’t the centrists that intervened in the Terry Schiavo case, it was the right wing loony tunes. His Supreme Court appointments have been filtered through a right wing litmus test. He put up a leaden trial balloon about privatizing Social Security. Exactly what on the tightie rightie agenda does Bush NOT endorse?
I don’t buy the demonization of the left regarding 9/11. Show me any prominent liberal who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. You had a criminal act perpetrated by alQaeda and abetted by the Taliban government. Overthrowing these monsters was entirely appropriate. If it had been left there, we wouldn’t have any compelling hatred of Bush. Instead, he made the biggest mistake in US history, invading Iraq. Your guy pulls the biggest mistake in history, yet you chastize lefties for what you perceive as guilt? Give me a break.
How did the myth get started that the right favors smaller government? The right wants a Big Nanny Bitch involved in every aspect of our personal lives. It always has. I think that what happened is that the right appropriated certain aspects of libertarianism that it thought would make effective slogans.
Also, the right has never been fiscally responsible. There is no limit to what it is willing to spend on a bloated military and on corporate welfare. It especially loves operating with government and big business as partners, each profiting the other with special favors.
You have one right here. I haven’t posted much lately, but if you check any of my past history, you’ll find I’ve been in favor of both (and many other) freedoms. Note also, I call them freedoms (as in innate and self justifying) as opposed to privileges (which implies needing “The State’s” permission or authorization).
The right, and not the Republicans want smaller government
The left want regulation of ecellence.
Can you give some specific examples to illustrate this? What legislation has been passed or promoted by “the left” to regulate excellence?
Hugo Chavez wants 6 hours of a work day of all his people today. That regulates that entire coutries productivity. That is a far left goal here in the US.
Yes it does. But how does that regulate excellence?
Can you name a specific leftist within the United States who is advocating a six hour work day?
Don’t know if she actually advocates a 6-hour workday, but check out Juliet Schor’s book, The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. If Chavez follows her thinking, the 6-hour day is meant as a full-employment measure – spreading the work around; and also to give workers more leisure time to spend with their families, etc.
Thanks, BrainGlutton.
So, bob_co, the ball is in your court. Here’s a clear proposal by an American leftist to shorten the workday. The goal is to lower unemployment and improve the quality of life for American workers. How, precisely, do you see this as a “regulation of excellence”?
:smack: Uh, no, I do not. I am new and I will need to confine my posts to the intent of the original poster. Although I do see where these discussions can get off topic. A post “facilitator” might be usefull in keeping us on track?
The reason those aren’t offensive is because they’re so vague as to be meaningless. Is giving corporations a tax break to stimulate the economy responsible behavior? Some say yes while others call it corporate welfare. The problem isn’t that we differ on these goals it’s that we disagree on how best to implement them.
I certainly think this is a worthwhile question. I believe too many people hear the word conservative and liberal or democrat and republican and suddenly think they know exactly what that other person will believe.
Marc