Why I Hate Preachy People...

Sparkybuzzed

Mike Huckabee wants you to convert!

The article starts off well enough talking about charity not being a function of government and how government isn't the solution to people's problems. Good. Got that. Then he says that the only solution is believing in Jesus. ... ... Seriously? And people are still lining up to try and make this man President?? And which Jesus should we believe in, Mike? Yours? Mine? Should we all line up to quarantine the queers with AIDs and rail about how gay marriage makes angels cry? Fucking people.

This is why being in the middle is so infuriating. No one actually seems to be making sense. They appeal to the extremes on both sides and leave me (and many, many other people) out to hang. I am tired of preachy fundamentalist Christians on the right and the hippie whackos on the left. Please, can a presidential candidate just tell me he's going to follow the Constitution and not try and cram anything down my throat?

Apreche

This idea that somehow staying "in the middle" or "neutral" is the way to be, or the nice way to be, really bothers me. It is the position taken by timid and weak willed people who would rather avoid confrontation than stand up for what they believe in.

Seriously, one person will come and say grass is green. Someone else will come and say grass is neon pink. I know some people they come around and say something like, "Can't we all just get along? Grass is maybe greenish pink?" No, shut the hell up. Grass is green, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Period. Sure, philosophy, cogito ergo sum, whatever. For all realistic intents and purposes, grass is green. If you are in a position to make important decisions, and you believe grass is neon pink, that is very very bad.

I don't want some candidate who's nice and in the middle. I want a candidate who knows what is right, and is going to cram it down the throat of anyone who's wrong, even if I'm the one who's wrong. The whole world needs a taste of some bad medicine. All our political representative lately have been too nice, too weak, too wishy-washy. They'd rather allow injustice to continue than create ripples in the waters. Give me the candidate who's not afraid to do a cannonball off the high dive.

Once had a president who wasn't afraid, his name was Andrew Jackson. He straight up gave the supreme court the double deuce. Problem is he thought grass was pink.

Hitman Hart

Some people, Scott, understand that sometimes compromise is best, especially when you have two big parties that have many fundamental differences between them. If you stick to bull headed ideas and are not willing to listen, things will not be done. Also, the candidates that are making strong statements like Huckabee and Paul are, frankly, wacknuts. Also, you have to realize that most of this country simply will not elect someone who has no faith or whatever in their life. They simply won't. Reality doesn't matter to the American public right now.

Apreche

Like I said, bad medicine. The public right now is like a spoiled child. They don't want to go to bed at their bedtime, they just want to eat candy all day, even though that is not what is best for them. Of course, they continually vote for the free candy no bedtime candidate, and things get worse for everybody. I'm going to vote for whoever will dole out the most punishment.

Omnutia

I know some people they come around and say something like, "Can't we all just get along? Grass is maybe greenish pink?" No, shut the hell up.

Ok, time for an Internet argument.
Opening sweeping statement: Could people stop trying to change peoples religions and try and change their actions. You can kill people in the name of any god or no god at all but wouldn't it be better just to stop people killing?
(you don't know how many rewrites it took to get my argument down to just that.)

HungryJoe

Romney has a problem with Atheists
Lawrence O'Donnell has a problem with Romney's Mormonism:

This was the worst speech, the worst political speech of my life, because this man stood there and said to you, "This is the faith of my fathers." And you (pointing at Buchanan) and none of these other commentators who liked this speech realize that the faith of his father is a racist thing. Until (sic) 1978 it was an officially racist faith. And for political convenience, in 1978 it switched, and it said "ok, black people can be in this church." He believes, if he believes the faith of his fathers, that black people are black because in heaven they turned away from God. In this demented, Scientology-like notion of what was going on in heaven before the creation of the Earth.

Sparkybuzzed

This idea that somehow staying "in the middle" or "neutral" is the way to be, or the nice way to be, really bothers me. It is the position taken by timid and weak willed people who would rather avoid confrontation than stand up for what they believe in.

Seriously, one person will come and say grass is green. Someone else will come and say grass is neon pink. I know some people they come around and say something like, "Can't we all just get along? Grass is maybe greenish pink?" No, shut the hell up. Grass is green, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Period. Sure, philosophy, cogito ergo sum, whatever. For all realistic intents and purposes, grass is green. If you are in a position to make important decisions, and you believe grass is neon pink, that is very very bad.

I don't want some candidate who's nice and in the middle. I want a candidate who knows what is right, and is going to cram it down the throat of anyone who's wrong, even if I'm the one who's wrong. The whole world needs a taste of some bad medicine. All our political representative lately have been too nice, too weak, too wishy-washy. They'd rather allow injustice to continue than create ripples in the waters. Give me the candidate who's not afraid to do a cannonball off the high dive.

Once had a president who wasn't afraid, his name was Andrew Jackson. He straight up gave the supreme court the double deuce. Problem is he thought grass was pink.

And when we vote for candidates who oppose any kind of compromise we end up in wars in Iraq and the threat of attacking Iran. That's working out so well for us.

What I mean about the middle is not a namby-pamby, maybe everyone's right person. I mean someone who stands for the rule of law above his personal beliefs, who will be fiscally responsible while supporting the poor and who understands the need for both diplomacy and war. Not wishy-washy, but strong willed. The fallacy here is thinking that one of the extremes must be right. Guess what? Usually, they're both wrong. It's funny that both the extreme left and right think that the middle is for the weak-willed. Ever think that the fringes are where the crazies hang out? The middle is a balance point. Example: The hippies want to ban all carbon outputs and the neocons want to keep making money. Solution? The middle! Make hybrid cars and low-emission manufacturing profitable. I bet folks change real quick.

Apreche

Usually, they're both wrong. It's funny that both the extreme left and right think that the middle is for the weak-willed. Ever think that the fringes are where the crazies hang out? The middle is a balance point. Example: The hippies want to ban all carbon outputs and the neocons want to keep making money. Solution? The middle! Make hybrid cars and low-emission manufacturing profitable. I bet folks change real quick.

This is the fallacy that I'm so opposed to. People seem to think that if a viewpoint is extreme, then it is somehow wrong, unrealistic, or untenable. The extremity of an idea, or the amount of fervor with which someone believes in an idea, has no relation to its merit whatsoever.

Sometimes one extreme is right, sometimes the other is right, sometimes neither. The point is to do what is best and what is right regardless of how extreme that is perceived to be. Sadly, in our current political climate, making rational decisions based on evidence, science, and reason is usually considered to be an extreme position.

Sparkybuzzed

Sometimes one extreme is right, sometimes the other is right, sometimes neither. The point is to do what is best and what is right regardless of how extreme that is perceived to be. Sadly, in our current political climate, making rational decisions based on evidence, science, and reason is usually considered to be an extreme position.

And you seem to think that a moderate view is wrong simply because it falls in between extremes. And there are plenty of whacked out decisions made without reason or science. The hippies who sterilize themselves because having children is selfish and hurts the earth, for example. The problem with extremes is that no political leader wants to take up any position contrary to the extreme they're courting. Look at Guliani and his problems because he's pro-choice and pro-gun control. Disagree with the extremes of your group even in the slightest way and no one wants to listen.

Jain7th

A compromise isn't a solution, it's just a compromise. You don't balance a scale by putting weights in the middle.

Mosquitoboy

I want a candidate that is like me. I am a democrat on certain issues, and a republican on others. I am considered in the middle yet I have constant extreme points of view, for one option is usually better then another. Choosing no option, or trying to find a middle ground can cause so many problems.

Having an extreme point of view does not mean you are not weighing the facts. It does not mean you haven't taken the other option into account. I debate and discuss with myself every point and it's counter argument, but in the end... picking one over the other is usually the only logical choice one can make. Thus making you sound like an extremist.

I fight for every right in the damn constitution, yet my left wing friends think I'm crazy when I say, "I don't think the US is ready to legalize marijuana. Socially we will abuse it." Yet my right wing friends hate when I talk about Freedom of speech.

Stupid political parties, It makes it so hard to back a candidate. I miss the idea of "No Political Parties" that we originally wanted.

[Edit] Because I don't know my left from my right. [/Edit]

rhinocero

Being automatically in the middle isn't right. Being automatically any position isn't right. Being a 'moderate' shouldn't mean that one automatically tries to get a compromise. Compromise is a political tool. Rather, it should mean that one judges both sides before making a decision. One should not have a knee-jerk reaction - one should not say "The Democrats say it, so it must be right" or "The Communists say it, so it must be wrong." That's what being a moderate should mean.

Also, mosquitoboy - do you want to switch right wing and left wing in those examples there? It didn't make much sense too me. Otherwise, very good points.

spiritfiend

People seem to think that if a viewpoint is extreme, then it is somehow wrong, unrealistic, or untenable. The extremity of an idea, or the amount of fervor with which someone believes in an idea, has no relation to its merit whatsoever.

I think that what you are actually citing is a tendency for rational thinkers to consider the possibility that they are wrong.

For the most part there could be certain situations in which there are clear cut distinctions between right and wrong. Let us take a look at your example of green grass. You make the statement that grass is green and not hot pink b, but what if someone were to genetically engineer neon pink grass? What if I forget to water my lawn in the height of summer? Dead grass might not be pink, but it isn't quite green.

Science doesn't produce absolute truth the same way as one would expect from religion. What people believe to be true one day can be disproved the next. Truth has nothing to do with compromise.

Apreche

My point is that politics is all about making decisions. Decisions should be made based upon evidence and rational thinking. When you determine the best course of action based upon evidence, you should fight for that course of action without compromise. If we are to assume the decision is indeed the best one, and is based on a foundation of truth, then to compromise that position is to accept something less than the best.

You shouldn't decide what your political stance is going to be based upon the public perception of that stance. If some experts study for many years and find the best solution we know to a particular problem, I should fight for that solution. If the media decides to label that solution as extreme, or if they decide to label it as moderate, that shouldn't change my stance.

Base your position on evidence, logic, and reason. Let the media label it however it wants, and disregard them.

spiritfiend

You shouldn't decide what your political stance is going to be based upon the public perception of that stance. If some experts study for many years and find the best solution we know to a particular problem, I should fight for that solution.

The Viking, Olaf the Peacock was lost at sea, and his crew were undecided which way they should go, and wanted to take a vote. Olaf said, "I want only the shrewdest to decide; in my opinion the council of fools is all the more dangerous the more of them there are."

Unfortunately, this is not how democracy works...

Apreche

Unfortunately, this is not how democracy works...

Yes, we are lucky that we don't live in a democracy, but a republic. Restore the electoral college to its original state, and remove direct voting for senators.

spiritfiend

Yes, we are lucky that we don't live in a democracy, but a republic.

We do live in a republic, but the underlying system is based on a democratic consensus whether it is the public at large, or a subset chosen by that public.

I'm not sure that having a subset of the public choosing another subset will solve this problem.

I will admit that any other system (i.e., despotism, monarchy, etc.) will create other, worse problems in the long run.

Apreche

I will admit that any other system (i.e., despotism, monarchy, etc.) will create other, worse problems in the long run.

Enlightened despotism ftw, lol.

Rym

remove direct voting for senators.

Three cheers for that.

It's scary how many people I talk to don't even know that it was ever different from how it is now. I won lunch for a week when I bet on it once back at IBM...

spiritfiend

It's scary how many people I talk to don't even know that it was ever different from how it is now.

That's definitely a big problem. Too many people assume that things have always been the way they are, and changing things will only lead to disaster.

Hitman Hart

So removing votes fixes things? It's much easier for a popular movement to sweep out the bad(and admittedly, the good) with more power in the general public's hands

HungryJoe

It's scary how many people I talk to don't even know that it was ever different from how it is now.

It's even more scary how many people don't remember that it was ever different from how it is now.

Starfox

Joe, you're the only one that remembers the Articles of Confederation.

Sparkybuzzed

So removing votes fixes things? It's much easier for a popular movement to sweep out the bad(and admittedly, the good) with more power in the general public's hands

Senators used to be elected by the state representatives to make sure that the states themselves have a say in government. The House was for the people, the Senate for the states. Having the senate elected by popular vote transfers power away from the states and to the federal level. It actually doesn't give the general population any more control over things, it just makes it appear like it does. Senators would most likely change more often with the vote back in state hands since they would be effectively representing whomever got elected in that state.

I also think that we should vote for Pres and VP separately like we used to.

Hitman Hart

Er...why does transferring power to the people give power to the federal government?

Apreche

Er...why does transferring power to the people give power to the federal government?

It takes it away from the states.

Cremlian

Senators used to be elected by the state representatives to make sure that the states themselves have a say in government. The House was for the people, the Senate for the states. Having the senate elected by popular vote transfers power away from the states and to the federal level. It actually doesn't give the general population any more control over things, it just makes it appear like it does. Senators would most likely change more often with the vote back in state hands since they would be effectively representing whomever got elected in that state.

While I don't have a strong opinion about this, but doesn't this almost guarantee you'll never have a 3rd party ever be a senator.. (not that it happens much anyhow, but it would actually reduce the chance). Since then a 3rd party would have to get a majority in the state legislature to ever dream of a chance for a independent senator?

spiritfiend

Actually, the vote for president and vice president used to be the same election. The winner would be President the runner up Vice President. This lead to the interesting situation where the President and Vice President were usually from opposing parties, and lead to conflicts within a ruling administration. The elections are technically more separate *now*, but the vote isn't split between parties in practice.

Remember our system of government was designed before the two party system developed.

HMTKSteve

Joe, you're theonlyone that remembers the Articles of Confederation.

That's because he was there when they were being written.

Democracy is the absolute worst form of government. It is nothing more than mob rule.

What's that famous quote, "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." Followed by, "liberty is a well-armed sheep."

I see political moderates as people to weak to take a stand on an issue and instead try to appease everyone just to make the argument (not the problem) go away for a while. I have respect for people like Biden, Pelosi and Reid. Not because they are right but because they have taken a stand are willing to stick to it even when the winds begin to change. That takes some testicular fortitude! Hillary I have no respect for because her positions change when the wind blows.

There is a difference between being stubborn and sticking to your guns. Unfortunately it often gets defined after the fact based on who was right.

Apreche

While I don't have a strong opinion about this, but doesn't this almost guarantee you'll never have a 3rd party ever be a senator.. (not that it happens much anyhow, but it would actually reduce the chance). Since then a 3rd party would have to get a majority in the state legislature to ever dream of a chance for a independent senator?

Think about it. Would it be easier to get the entire state to directly vote a 3rd party senator, or easier to get enough 3rd party people voted into state legislature?

HMTKSteve

Changing back to state elected Senators would also put a serious damper on the power of political parties on the national stage. Instead of potential (and current) Senators dependant on the powers in Washington for reelection monies they would be dependant on what the elected officials in their state thought of them.