General Chat / the conservative opinion...

Because then, we would have more options instead of just being limited to our usual "bad" or "worse"?

Are you saying you would support a political movement that expressed the complete opposite of your views?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I think I'll give you the benfit of the doubt and just think that is complete bull shit on your part. I cannot believe that you would honestly just support a rising group so others may hear about them. That means you would theoretically support your own destruction or a group such as the Nazis.

No, it's probably because he understands and respects that there are different views than his and that those views, while not necessarily what he thinks, could churn up things in the political circle and get America out of this two-party deadlock.

Lazyboy, do you see why it is completely worthless to have any type of discussion with you?

You contort what people say to ignite one of your looping arguements, you completely ignore what they say, and you pass any other opinion other than your own off as "bull shit". It was obvious a long time ago that you are here to argue just for the sake of arguing, but now it is getting tiresome. It would be one thing to argue if you would actually consider what other people say, but you don't even give that common courtesy. It is easier to let you hear what you want to (i.e. what you want to make an arguement out of) than to offer an opinion or argue a point. Everything and anything said falls on your deaf ears - and what's the point of droning on and on when no progress is made? Here's to you: the from-now-on ever-correct, never-defect one. (Is that what you want to hear?)

You said you would support a group that was the complete opposite of what you believe. I asked and you agreed. How does your statement not mean that you would not support Neo Nazis? Or would you discriminate against which smaller groups you would support? Then you are in a state of contradiction.

The problem I see with most people here is too many try too hard to be "open minded and accepting". When the fact is it is impossible to be 100% "open minded and accepting". In order to be 100% accepting one would even have to accept the idea that being accepting is bull shit. It just cannot happen.

Lazyboy, do you see why it is completely worthless to have any type of discussion with you?

You contort what people say to ignite one of your looping arguements, you completely ignore what they say, and you pass any other opinion other than your own off as "bull shit".  It was obvious a long time ago that you are here to argue just for the sake of arguing, but now it is getting tiresome.  It would be one thing to argue if you would actually consider what other people say, but you don't even give that common courtesy.  It is easier to let you hear what you want to (i.e. what you want to make an arguement out of) than to offer an opinion or argue a point.  Everything and anything said falls on your deaf ears - and what's the point of droning on and on when no progress is made?  Here's to you: the from-now-on ever-correct, never-defect one.  (Is that what you want to hear?)

And to top it all off, you wear makeup. Who does that, really.

I'm not contradicting myself. You put words in my mouth, and then made assumptions and conclusions. The concept can't be too terribly difficult, Panic got it right off the bat. It really doesn't have anything to do with personal beliefs - why shouldn't every option be presented equally?

Well then you need to equally present flat out hatred and bigotry as well. And that is what you said you would work to do.

Well then you need to equally present flat out hatred and bigotry as well.  And that is what you said you would work to do.

No, he said he "would support a political movement that expressed the complete opposite of [his] views..." You of all people should know how to not misquote someone; You've bitched about it enough.

If I had a vote this year, I would have voted for the first 3rd party candidate on the ballot. If the two major groups of assholes aren't going to do the job right, then let some other group of assholes try it.

Two ways in which you were too black and white there, Lazyboy:

1) The comparison between supporting third parties and supporting the Nazis is ludicrous. Everyone here agrees with you that the Nazis were a barbaric, ruthless group of people who never deserved to come into power. What John advocates, and what many people here advocate, is the support of free thought, of thought outside the current party lines of the Republicans and Democrats. If that thought is represented by a third party, then so be it. Right now, it seems that we've got the left holding fast to the Democratic party line, and the right holding fast to the Republican party line. Instead of a diverse country supporting a plethora of different views, we've got two main ones going head-to-head. John and others just would like to see some alternative ideals and ways of thinking advocated by others.
It's kind of like a stalemate in chess. If you could add one or two more pieces to the chessboard, might that help break up the stalemate? Possibly, and probably. That's what John's advocating. I think it's a bold point of view because he admits that he would go as far as to support extra white pieces being added when he was playing as black. I don't suppose you believe that is realistic because you are one who holds fast to your own beliefs. But it's people like you that will sit by and end up contributing nothing to the game in a stalemate like we are witnessing now.
Nowhere has John, or anyone, said that they would support an entire new set of pieces being added to the board, and ones that automatically annihilate the other pieces and seize control of the board. That would be comparable to the Nazi party. Believe it or not Lazyboy, leftists, even the most freethinking ones, do believe in lines in the sand. It isn't common sense to support a radical, terrorizing party from ever coming into power. The left believe that as much as the right. But it also isn't common sense to sit by and not react during a deadlock of political opinion, having been siphoned into two party lines that are going head-to-head.

2. No one here is 100% accepting. You make a good point that that is impossible. But that point's not even relevant because no one is. There's a difference between continually being swayed by all trains of thought that cross one's mind, which is what you were hypothesizing is in effect here, and having beliefs yet being able to see and respect the other side. It is evident that you don't recognize this latter possibility. It seems that you either believe that one must hold tight to one's beliefs, and rarely give an inch (that is the side you seem to identify with), or be completely swayed and inconsistent by all opinion that crosses one's path (that is what you are accusing people here of doing). One can have certain ideals and beliefs, Lazyboy, and still recognize and respect those that are different from his, or even opposite. I do it myself. I consider myself a moderate liberal, but I still appreciate that Christianity has a firm foothold on the lives of people around the country and that we shouldn't abandon that. I recognize that Republicans are good, hardworking people just as Democrats are. I pay respect to the other side and its views. Yet I am not 100% accepting, I recognize that. I still have beliefs that I hold to. But not so unilaterally, and so blindly, that I have no respect for those opposite me and their beliefs. It's another line in the sand at work here, again defined by common sense and human nature (the tendency to stick to one's beliefs to a certain extent) that you don't seem to be aware of.
That's all John is articulating here. He is one that respects the other side, and would be willing to make the small sacrifice of seeing a facet of it added to American politics so that the stalemate between Democrats and Republicans is alleviated a bit.
I respect your tendency to hold fast to your beliefs as well, I do, but at the same time you must recognize that it may not be a cut-and-dry tendency. The less respect you have for views different than or opposing yours, the less you believe that it is possible to have that respect, because then you're even more closely attached to your own beliefs. It's a vicious cycle with a strong tug, and it doesn't prefer those on the left or right, it can apply to anyone on either side. I believe that you're a bit farther down into this cycle than John is, or that many people here are, and I think you ought to recognize the volatility of completely shutting out and disrespecting an argument made by the other side, which is what I have observed you do many times here.

But I gave him the benefit of the doubt that flat out hatred and bigotry were the complete opposite of his views. I assumed that he is not a recist, sexist, etc and that such beliefs are his opposite. So if he seeks an apology for assuming that he does not partake in hate and bigotry I will gladly offer it.

I never said anything wrong with support of third parties. But I did say that trying to win the presidency and being from a third party is a fantasy.

As much as anybody wants to preach they will never fully help support the other trains of thought. I asked if that included a complete opposite. There has to be self preservation in his belief somewhere. There is no reason for the two major parties to have to encourage the growth of the third parties. The major parties know that the third parties seek to either end the existence of one or both of the two major parties or extremely alter their presence. This is self preservation in play.

I see nothing wrong with preventing other views from being heard. Especially when I believe those views will be detrimental to freedom.

But I gave him the benefit of the doubt that flat out hatred and bigotry were the complete opposite of his views. I assumed that he is not a recist, sexist, etc and that such beliefs are his opposite. So if he seeks an apology for assuming that he does not partake in hate and bigotry I will gladly offer it.

So, your "kindness" somehow allows you to bend the facts? What you said is complete crap, and you know damn well there's no way to justify it. You're basically saying that he will choose the most extreme of choices simply because he can, which I'm going to give "him the benefit of the doubt" and assume that he won't make the most improbable choice. Or is that too unreasonable for you to believe? Afterall, it didn't come from your mouth, so it must be false.

So your saying he may partake in some bigorty? Again, if I was truely wrong about his rejection of bigorty I will apologize.

you missed the logic train lzb... again.

The problem with your argument LB...is that the current two parties ARE on the opposite pages.....hence a third party candidate CANNOT be on an already occupied opposite page.....chances are, they are in an entirely different book.


I do agree with John, in that, and this is from first hand experience with you...you do seem to argue...JUST for the sake of arguing....and while I love a debate as much as the next faggot,....you are, in my opinion, trying to hard to argue the way the Nietzsche would (in a "non conformist text book sort of way")...and as you seem tiredly pedantic in your arguments....I choose NOT to argue with you anymore. I have learned, when dealing with topics that you are a part of, in an argumentative sort of way, ...to just smile and nod.

I see nothing wrong with preventing other views from being heard. Especially when I believe those views will be detrimental to freedom.

Hahahaha! The hypocrisy!

The major two parties are not on opposite sides. A Republican is nothing more than a Democrat to a lesser degree.

There is nothing hypocritical about not supporting those I disagree with. One has free speach but it entirely up to that person to preach not others.