Other Resources The Political Joe » Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival Rss Feed  
Moderators: Ron Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 3
 
 
2014-07-01 10:59 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Master
4058
200020002525
Denver
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by Jackemy1 

What is the alternative..... I read this little analogy. If we are at a one hundred foot chasm and one guy says we need to build a 100 foot bridge to get across, that makes him an "extremist". And the other guy says there is no need to get across the chasm and therefore no need to build a bridge. That guy is labeled an "extremist" as well. So the third guys is a centrist and demand a compromise be made and a 50 foot bridge be built ending in thin air. It seems to me that the centrist is the one who lives in fantasy and the two extremes have a better grasp in reality even though there is strong disagreement. This country is filled with 50 foot bridges built by Washington. The word extreme has been used as a negative connotation as a rigid ideologue. But what really is an extremist other than someone who takes straight line positions based on well defined principles. The right is based in individual right, personal responsibility, and liberty while the left is based in egalitarianism, social justice, and the welfare of the whole is greater that of the individual. Both sides take a relatively straight lined position because they have both developed reasonably consistent ways to see the world. Then you have these independents that believe that borrowing a little from each side somehow makes them more enlightened yet in reality they stand for nothing. They take the politically expedient position and grab bits and pieces from both sides in the name of compromise. They have no thought out set of principles, no consistency, and no clue what to do. The end result is a lot of 50 foot bridges.

The thing I don't like about this analogy is that it assumes the status quo is fine.  If there's a fire coming towards us, we have to get to the other side of that chasm somehow.  If both sides are so rigid in their beliefs that no solution is possible you end up burning.  A 50' bridge is only useless when one side refuses to budge their position.  If both sides are willing to give a little and *gasp* cooperate, and move 1/2 way down the chasm, a 50' bridge will be long enough to get you across.  The country has a number of fires coming towards us (Medicare eating up a bigger and bigger part of the budget, climate change, another singing talent show just started on tv, etc.) and we have to find a way to get across the chasm.  Blue,  No yellow...   Ahhhh........



2014-07-01 11:30 AM
in reply to: drewb8

User image

Champion
7085
50002000252525
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival
Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by Jackemy1 

What is the alternative..... I read this little analogy. If we are at a one hundred foot chasm and one guy says we need to build a 100 foot bridge to get across, that makes him an "extremist". And the other guy says there is no need to get across the chasm and therefore no need to build a bridge. That guy is labeled an "extremist" as well. So the third guys is a centrist and demand a compromise be made and a 50 foot bridge be built ending in thin air. It seems to me that the centrist is the one who lives in fantasy and the two extremes have a better grasp in reality even though there is strong disagreement. This country is filled with 50 foot bridges built by Washington. The word extreme has been used as a negative connotation as a rigid ideologue. But what really is an extremist other than someone who takes straight line positions based on well defined principles. The right is based in individual right, personal responsibility, and liberty while the left is based in egalitarianism, social justice, and the welfare of the whole is greater that of the individual. Both sides take a relatively straight lined position because they have both developed reasonably consistent ways to see the world. Then you have these independents that believe that borrowing a little from each side somehow makes them more enlightened yet in reality they stand for nothing. They take the politically expedient position and grab bits and pieces from both sides in the name of compromise. They have no thought out set of principles, no consistency, and no clue what to do. The end result is a lot of 50 foot bridges.

The thing I don't like about this analogy is that it assumes the status quo is fine.  If there's a fire coming towards us, we have to get to the other side of that chasm somehow.  If both sides are so rigid in their beliefs that no solution is possible you end up burning.  A 50' bridge is only useless when one side refuses to budge their position.  If both sides are willing to give a little and *gasp* cooperate, and move 1/2 way down the chasm, a 50' bridge will be long enough to get you across.  The country has a number of fires coming towards us (Medicare eating up a bigger and bigger part of the budget, climate change, another singing talent show just started on tv, etc.) and we have to find a way to get across the chasm.  Blue,  No yellow...   Ahhhh........




Exactly. If you leave it up to the extremists, we end up standing on the same side of the chasm forever. That may be fine for some, but the rest of the world, one way or another, is finding a way to get across the bridge while we're still standing on the same side staring at each other and refusing to budge, like these guys:



(zax.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
zax.jpg (16KB - 0 downloads)
2014-07-01 4:29 PM
in reply to: drewb8

User image

Pro
6200
50001000100100
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by Jackemy1 

What is the alternative..... I read this little analogy. If we are at a one hundred foot chasm and one guy says we need to build a 100 foot bridge to get across, that makes him an "extremist". And the other guy says there is no need to get across the chasm and therefore no need to build a bridge. That guy is labeled an "extremist" as well. So the third guys is a centrist and demand a compromise be made and a 50 foot bridge be built ending in thin air. It seems to me that the centrist is the one who lives in fantasy and the two extremes have a better grasp in reality even though there is strong disagreement. This country is filled with 50 foot bridges built by Washington. The word extreme has been used as a negative connotation as a rigid ideologue. But what really is an extremist other than someone who takes straight line positions based on well defined principles. The right is based in individual right, personal responsibility, and liberty while the left is based in egalitarianism, social justice, and the welfare of the whole is greater that of the individual. Both sides take a relatively straight lined position because they have both developed reasonably consistent ways to see the world. Then you have these independents that believe that borrowing a little from each side somehow makes them more enlightened yet in reality they stand for nothing. They take the politically expedient position and grab bits and pieces from both sides in the name of compromise. They have no thought out set of principles, no consistency, and no clue what to do. The end result is a lot of 50 foot bridges.

The thing I don't like about this analogy is that it assumes the status quo is fine.  If there's a fire coming towards us, we have to get to the other side of that chasm somehow.  If both sides are so rigid in their beliefs that no solution is possible you end up burning.  A 50' bridge is only useless when one side refuses to budge their position.  If both sides are willing to give a little and *gasp* cooperate, and move 1/2 way down the chasm, a 50' bridge will be long enough to get you across.  The country has a number of fires coming towards us (Medicare eating up a bigger and bigger part of the budget, climate change, another singing talent show just started on tv, etc.) and we have to find a way to get across the chasm.  Blue,  No yellow...   Ahhhh........

But what about when the government "manufactures" the "fire coming towards us"?  It seems that every law being proposed for all kinds of issues is to fend off some boogie man or "keep us safe".  What I've discovered over the years is that the fire is typically just the smoke coming off the cigar of the fat cat whose going to get paid back when the law gets passed.

I think legitimate fires will be addressed because they're obvious to all.  When only half the country and half the people in office claim something is a fire, then it's just not a fire.

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 3
 
 
RELATED POSTS

IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status Pages: 1 2 3 4

Started by DanielG
Views: 4694 Posts: 95

2013-07-19 12:03 PM tuwood

Ricin Guy - TEA Party Member Pages: 1 2

Started by DanielG
Views: 2340 Posts: 46

2013-04-24 10:53 AM DanielG
RELATED ARTICLES
date : October 14, 2010
author : FitWerx
comments : 0
A review of the Shimano 105 vesus SRAM Rival Time Trial component group differences.
 
date : July 11, 2007
author : AMSSM
comments : 1
Recent studies have demonstrated that moderate to mild levels of caffeine (less than 300mg) do not promote dehydration during exercise.
date : August 31, 2004
author : malvey
comments : 0
Your Past is History but the present determines your future. From the book 'Be here now' by Dr. Richard Alpert