Mature intelligent right wing freaks

Subject: Re: Mature intelligent right wing freaks

Carnivore wrote: Now that AG is gone, we should all try to recruit some articulate right-wingers from the nabe (if they exist) to start posting here so the political discussions aren't so masturbatory.

What - I don't count?

I used to be smart but booze killed my brain. sorry.

See? THIS is why my friend Jamie (from the Charleston thread) needs to move to PH. Okay, he's not right wing exactly, but he likes to challenge liberal views, and he's terribly smart and (as you may have noticed), friendly and articulate.

I am probably more "right wing" then alot of people on this board but I'm not up for any debates. I took a course on politics last year at Brooklyn College and have since decided that I am not voting any more, and that I am never going to school again. The only exception will be for Marty Markowitz.

I will try to get my buddy in here, I think he can give you what you're looking for.

The majority of posters seem to be lefty so people with more conservative views are bound to feel bashed. I'd like to see other opinions as well, I always enjoyed Jack's posts even though I disagreed with him most of the time.

Come on, we're the only ones "bashing" or disagreeing with right wing republicans? This is a hardcore BLUE state. If someone is right wing, "conservative" {whatever that really means}, they have to keep thier mouth shut everywhere in New York, not just here, for fear of being attacked verbally. This is one of the only places in Brooklyn, I'm guessing, that someone with those political leanings can express themselves. The problem we've been having is not a simple difference of opinion, but the way "they've" been expressing themselves, which has been anonymously, vitriolically, race-baitingly, nonsensically, illogically and very rudely.

I'd love to see some posts that express "conservative" opinions creatively and logically, without personal insults. Let's go! Back up your opinions with logic, and you'll get the same in return.

Subject: You know...

I'll try to say this as diplomatically as possible. I don't think the majority of the left-wing opinion on this message board has been that articulate or well-reasoned. Unfortunately that doesn't really invite articulate and well-reasoned debate from whatever right-wing posters you're seeking.

A lot of the political speech here could best be categorized as "bumper-sticker" level angry comments against monolithic police states and corrupt racist police officers that would incite most people who don't see the world in such extremes. The thread regarding the NYPD's announcement of random searches of bags could be interesting, but instead it's filled with rants. Granted, there are issues to be explored on both topics, but most people's comments have been a wee bit over-the-top, and hard to really take seriously.

So, some people with differing opinions won't respond because they don't believe the response they will get will be well-reasoned.

I'll be your well-reasoned right-wing debate partner if you'd like, but I'd be playing a part. I'm a liberal Democrat.

Subject: Re: You know...

Carnivore wrote:
All good points. I think having a well-articulated argument from the other side (not to reduce everything to a dichotomy, but...) will bring out better-reasoned statements from everyone. You don't have to "play a part" to further the discussion. There have to be people out there who actually disagree with the majority here. I just want them to speak up.

Here, I'll start you off...

"Most of the people complaining about the police searches would be the first to complain about the Bush administration's ineffective response to terror if/when a terrorist attack on the NYC subway system ever takes place. You can't have it both ways. Some freedoms have to be sacrificed to make us all a little safer. The NYPD is doing their best to minimize any infringement on people's rights. In fact, the proposed searches are entirely voluntary, so there is no issue of illegal search and seizure. The NYC subway clearly has to be one of the top American targets for terrorist attack, so we should be applauding the fact that our local officials are finally starting to realize this and act accordingly, not attacking the first steps they're taking to make our system safer."

Now is that so hard? C'mon guys, I know you're out there!

I somewhat disagree with the majority here. Not so much necessarily in substance but reasoning. (Should this comment even be here? Or in the NYPD subway section)

I think all government agencies are going to be subject to intense and at times unfair Monday morning government. Even libertarians would agree that at a minimum it is the government's job to provide national or regional security. The expectations are that the government can and will keep its citizens safe, period. Unfortunately it may not be legal, practical or possible to keep everybody safe all the time.

Which is why I think that the Bush administration so often walks the difficult and somewhat paradoxical line of reaffirming that they expect another major terrorist attack to occur while at the same time reminding people that we have been safe since 9/11. Sure you could argue that at its most basic point it's CYA but it's somewhat the only tact that you can take. The subway could be extremely secure, but people don't want to give up their time and civil liberties to make it secure. However, at the same time they want to be safe. It's hard to balance those.

I've seen a lot of complaints from people who were upset that the feds recently remarked how they would focus more time and energy on confirming the security of airlines instead of local public transporation like the NYC subway, on the rationale that an airline disaster would likely create more deaths and injuries.

When new initiatives are taken however, whether it be more aggressive police action or more closed-circuit cameras there's a vocal outrage from some in the community.

I don't see in many circumstances how more security can't come without a change in civil liberties. I don't think the founders of the Constitution ever envisioned dirty bombs, over-the-shoulder missiles, suicide bombings or anthrax. So how the Constitution will be interpreted in the future to things like this and the national security needs of the government will be interesting.

I for one, don't mind seeing more closed-circuit cameras. Never really have. I'm out in public, anybody can see what I'm doing...if it's recorded, it's recorded. If I'm at home, I have privacy.

I do think there is some worth to doing random searches with consent. I don't know if I see much difference between this and travelling by air. Obviously there are loads of practical issues to be addressed as well as the worthwhileness of the practice. Legally, (and I am an attorney) if it's done right...and it might not be, I think it will pass muster.

Anonymous wrote: [quote=sje]I'd love to see some posts that express "conservative" opinions cretively and logically

hahahaha! and id like to see pigs fly

that was me. OMG I FELL VICTIM TO THE ACCIDENTAL GUEST POSTING! :shock: :shock: :shock:

extra security measures are a nice idea...but sort of useless.
what needs to change is the totalitarian, ethnocentric american attitude towards non-westernized countries. with "our" president making statements like
"those barbaric people, whose backward theology" referring to the insurgents...who are only trying to defend their home from occupation, it's no wonder that terriorst attacks have tripled in the past year, worldwide.

it's policy that's at fault. it's the general american ideology...we're better than the rest...that's at fault. and i say this b/c i love this country and all that it has given me, and my immigrant family...but come on...the attitude...the machismo...the freedom fries...gross!! and invasive...

we are in fact beginning to send TV signals to venezuela, against their government's wishes...they are in the process of jamming their signals. why? think about it. 4th largest oil producer...it's on the list. talks failed between the US and Venezuela three months ago...Venezuela is now shipping it's oil to china, instead of us...and they bought millions of dollars of military equipment from Russia.

many americans are so ignorant of the fact that for decades, worldwide measures have been taken to deal with terrorism: ireland, england, isreal, sudan, venzuela, columbia, china, russia...etc. it's not new to the majority of the population...i guess everyone's afraid that their supersized country is not all that super, and is not untouchable.
respect breeds respect...we're going the wrong way.

EmilyM wrote: [quote=Carnivore][quote=FLUTE]Wow, I was right.

Bye Daily Heights. It's been fun.

FLUTE

Surely you could wait more than 17 minutes before assuming your statement was being met with silence. And no one attacked you.

Hm. I thought she was kidding...

I have no problem with things being met with silence, so I put that in a totally different category than bashing. Sometimes I just prefer to agree to disagree with people.

so if bashing is bad and silence is no good, does that mean only agreeing/nice conversation is allowed?

if you cant say anything nice, dont say anything at all

though somtimes i think the silence here is because stuff is fast paced, and either people missed your point or simply arent interested in discussing it.