Dissenters Wanted!

[Emperor Roland]

Okay, this thread is intended to make people think, to make them argue, respectfully of course, to to challenge the way people think. See, I want people to disagree with me, because I am very secure in the fact that... 1, I do not know everything... and 2, while I may hold an opinion, that does not mean that I can not tolerate people who disagree. In my humble opinion, it is dissent that makes us stronger. If we all agreed, it would be a pretty boring world! LOL.

 

But seriously, if someone has logical arguments as to why my opinion is wrong, I may end up changing my opinion. Changing one's beliefs is not a bad thing... it is a great thing. Something to be celebrated, because it means that you have grown as a person. When we stop growing, when we stop learning, we die inside. MY physical body is doing a good enough job of dying, but I will never let my mind, my soul, my very being die... simply because I become arrogant enough to believe that I am right, and there is no other possible opinion out there.

 

Ok, now that I have gone all high and mighty on my soap box, lol, let me explain what I intend for this thread. I will sometimes post things in here, that I WANT people to disagree with. I welcome it. It is an opportunity for you to try and change my mind, and a chance for me to try and change yours. I am sure that sometimes I will have lots of people agreeing with me, but for those that do not, PLEASE, post. Explain why you disagree. Give all of us the opportunity to grow with your view point. We might not change each others minds, but will we have a good discussion on it, and perhaps, find out we are not as different in our views as we may think.

 

Now for the rules. Remember Rule number 1. Juan says... "Play nice... or else!"

 

What do I mean by that? It's simple. You can disagree with someone all you want, but the second you start name calling, start trying to belittle someone for expressing their opinion, or generally trying to insult someone, that is crossing the line. That will not be tolerated at all.

 

Let me give you an example. I am sure that anyone who has read my posts realizes that I am not a fan of President Obama, or for the Left Wing Liberal establishment. However, I still respect them for the position they are in. I may disagree with their policies, with what they do, and how they do it, but that does not give me the right to belittle the person. Disagree with? Yes! Degrade them, No... that is not acceptable. And yes... some people seem to have forgotten that you can disagree with someone with out personally attacking them. If you disagree with something I say, I do not take it as a personal slight against me, why should it. Millions of brave men and women have fought and died, have given the ultimate sacrifice to make sure that you have the RIGHT to disagree with me, and I will NEVER disrespect their sacrifice, simply because I may not be man enough to admit that I may not be right.

 

Someone made the comment that they were afraid that what they posted on the board may get them banned. IT WILL NOT! Not as long as I am running things around here. There are very few things that will get someone banned from this board... disagreeing with someone is NOT one of them.

 

Two of my favorite quotes are:

 

"He who is different from me does not impoverish me - he enriches me. Our unity is constituted in something higher than ourselves - in Man... For no man seeks to hear his own echo, or to find his reflection in the glass." ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's Corollary:  For no man seeks to hear his own echo, except the Tyrant who will brook no discension.

 

 

“If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear.”

― Gene Roddenberry

 

[Anjobranco]

Humm i think i will enjoy this one very much.

I have a father that is almost tyrannic in his believes and things that only he is right and all the others are wrong, is word is law.

For many years i was forced to conform to be and think like the society thinks is the norm.

Grow up be a "Man" get married whit a woman an have children.

It was some very difficult years of my life.

Since them i have made some soul searching and reach the conclusion that a could not continues to live that way.

Now i have some strong feelings and believes of what my live should be.

A the moment it is not, 4 years unemployment, because of the believes that when you reach the age of the forty’s you are to old to get a new job.

But that is live "Que sera sera" better days will come.

[Zach Caldwell]

The last part of your post Anjo caused me to do a double take. Is it a cultural thing in Portugal that if you are 40 or older you are too old to get a new job? That just seems bizarre to me.

[ken barber]

Roland,

 

In contrast to your post I completely agree with you. And I must point out I am a part of the left wing establishment. I campaigned for President Obama both times. While I don't think he is  our lord and saviour I think he has some good ideas. (and BTW for being someone who is part of the right wing establishment, I must thank you for addressing him properly. All too often, on both sides we disrespect the office because we don't like the man sitting in the chair. It is President Obama just like it is Speaker Boehner, Senator Mcconnell, Senator Cruz, etc.)

 

Over the years my political positions have been swayed by peoples passion and dedication. I am have always considered the fact that is a majority of people believe so passionately about something maybe I should take a second look.  That doesn't mean after I take a second look I will agree. I just try really hard to see things from their perspective and place myself in their shoes.

 

So I reiterate you call dissenters wanted. If I post something or comment and you disagree tell me you disagree and why. 

 

Thanks for the post Roland I feel like you and I are on opposite side of most debates but I think we can respectfully debate our points.

 

“I think... if it is true that 

there are as many minds as there 
are heads, then there are as many 
kinds of love as there are hearts.”  Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

 

“Strength lies in differences, not in similarities” ― Stephen R. Covey

[Emperor Roland]

Ken, i think you and i may find a bond in our disagreements.  some of my closest friends have vastly different political ideas then i do, which of course makes life rather interesting. 

 

So, shall we start this out with a bang?

[Anjobranco]

Zach i had to think some before i try to answer your question regarding the 40 years old thing.

 

It is difficult to explain when you do not live it.

 

There are various factors for that, cultural, social, economical, and even aesthetic.

 

The cultural, social and aesthetic are link together, it is the image that the companies want to show to there customers. The image of a companies made of young and beautiful people.

It is difficult for me to explain that but if i can make some analogy, if you see Americans TV shows, we see well feet and beautiful people because that is the image the want to pass, so i think it is something similar.

 

On the economical, it is simple mathematics, our age of retirement is by law 66 years old, so if you wire some one whit 40 years, he will work 26 more years, if you hire some 26 years old its 40 years of work.

Another thing is a person whit 40 years probably will have like 15 years of job experience, and will have an highers wage, and someone that is 25 whit no experience will have a lower wage.

 

All of that it is compliment whit the fact that is extremely difficult to fire some here, You have to have extreme reason to fire some one.

[Anjobranco]

Roland

 

I do not think you have the concept of center left wing on the United States, but that is what i am.

Or really thinking about it i thing your left wing it is more similar to our center left wing, than or left wing.

I do not know enough about you politic parties but i do not see you democratic party as extreme as our left wing that is compose by Communist parties.

[ken barber]

Roland,

Of course start with a bang if your going to start anything always start with a bang. Thats one of the keys to writing isn't it. Get the readers attention as quickly as possible and then keep it.

[ken barber]

Anjo,

 

Do you mind if I use Anjo,

 

Many people associate the democratic party as left wing. When in reality it is just left of center and is made up of a lot of moderates. Same goes for republicans they are not right wing just, just right. The Left wing parties are the fanatical groups. While we do have a communist party here they have no representation in government but they would be considered a third party.

 

Trivia question

Does anyone know why american politics are referred to as Left and RIght?

[Anjobranco]

Anjo,

 

Do you mind if I use Anjo,

 

Many people associate the democratic party as left wing. When in reality it is just left of center and is made up of a lot of moderates. Same goes for republicans they are not right wing just, just right. The Left wing parties are the fanatical groups. While we do have a communist party here they have no representation in government but they would be considered a third party.

 

Trivia question

Does anyone know why american politics are referred to as Left and RIght?

 

I do not mind at all

 

I did make some research and found this:

 

Because the term “left” is already widely used to denote social systems and ideologies of force (e.g., socialism, communism, “progressivism”), and the term “right” is substantially used to denote social systems and ideologies of freedom (e.g., capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism), the best approach for advocates of freedom is not to develop new terminology for the political spectrum, but to define the existing terminology with respect to political essentials—and to claim the extreme right end of the spectrum as rightfully and exclusively ours.

A notable advantage of embracing the political right as our own is that the term “right” happens to integrate seamlessly with the philosophical and conceptual hierarchy that supports freedom. This is a historic accident, but a welcome one. Although “left” and “right” originally referred to seating arrangements of 18th-century legislators in France—arrangements unrelated to anything in contemporary American politics—the term “right” conceptually relates to fundamental moral truths on which freedom depends.

From here:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

[ken barber]

Yes Anjo,

I was looking for where the term come from.

and you hit on it alittle the artlicle states that this was a historic accident but actually the layout of our congessional centers and where people sit is based off this accident

 

What is the origin of left and right in politics? The traditional answer is that these ideas derive from the French National Assembly after 1789, in which supporters of the King sat on one side and those of the revolution on the other. To this day in the US house and Senate Republicans sit on the right side of the center Aisle when viewed from the back of the chamber and Democrats sit in the left side of the center aisle.

[ken barber]

BTW I love this warning on this sub forum. Its perfect

 

Beware for you are entering a hot and heavy political discussion area. Do not visit this forum if you do not want to get into arguments, or fight for your opinions. 

[Str8mayb]

We seem to love putting lables on each other.  Right wing, reactionary, fundamenlist or Left wing, commie, hippie.  Jeez.  I tend to walk a bit to the conservative side of most issues but there are others I am to the left.  As long as we can talk to each other things can work out.  Compromise is not a bad thing,  Insisting that ones way is the only way and we won't even talk about it is extremely dangerous.

 

Thanks Roland for giving us this place to disagree.  I'll try to keep Neal from calling you too many names.

[Reader2]

Str8mayb What have you done with Neal? What evil plot are you hacting?

[Rilbur]

Str8mayb What have you done with Neal? What evil plot are you hacting?

The cliff-hanger kind?

[Str8mayb]

I do have plans.  (Evil laughter...)

 

It involves his favorite, BenGay.

 

As Daddy Doc wouldssay, "Serves the little weasel right."

[Reader2]

I do have plans.  (Evil laughter...)

 

It involves his favorite, BenGay.

 

As Daddy Doc wouldssay, "Serves the little weasel right."

How many tolites can a guy clean in a day?

[Hunter]

 (and BTW for being someone who is part of the right wing establishment, I must thank you for addressing him properly. All too often, on both sides we disrespect the office because we don't like the man sitting in the chair. It is President Obama just like it is Speaker Boehner, Senator Mcconnell, Senator Cruz, etc.)

 

Technically speaking Ken you are wrong and it is supposed to be Mr. President; furthermore, technically speaking our constitution prohibits titles.  When it came to George Washington our Congressmen had a big debate over it and how to address him and I quote from a link I post below  "After a few more days of debate, one congressman re-examined the Constitution and reminded his colleagues that it prohibited titles. After murmurs of surprise diminished, members finally adopted the Republican simplicity of "Mr. President" -- setting the standard for generations of American presidents to come." 

 

 

There were a lot of pompous suggestion to be sure as pointed out in this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harlow-giles-unger/how-his-highness-presidents-day_b_4784011.html

 

It was a compromise that was adopted back then, but in our day and age we are bandying it about as a title so technically speaking flies in the face of the Constitution about using titles.  As for Presidents who held the office in the past it isn't technically proper ettiquete to address them as President, but rather Former President, etc..., again though according to our Constitution it is prohibited, but as pointed out Congress had to try addressing a sitting President somehow in order to deal with not only our country but foreign countries as well, so they settled on Mr. President.

 

Now in regards to your comment regarding "All too often, on both sides we disrespect the office because we don't like the man sitting in the chair." I don't think many people ommit the title simply to disrespect a sitting President.  For me I often ommit it when I'm simply talking in a casual manner.  I'm sure if I ever met a sitting President personally the person would be addressed in a formal manner, but let's not get carried away with being so called slighted simply because a person ommited the title when talking in a casual manner.  Let's face it you hold a position and title where you work, but at home and around your friends no one is using that title with you.  I remind you that the position of President is a job.  I'm sure even a sitting President's wife and children never referred to them as Mr. President in private, or Madam President when that time comes in our history which it surely will one day.  Do you feel slighted when someone calls you Ken when you are in a casual setting.  There is a time and place to be formal, and in my opinion when we are in a casual setting such as this forum it isn't necessarily required and it doesn't necessarily automatically show disrespect. 

 

Again, going all the way back to George Washington the Congress had a difficult time and debated for many days on how to address a sitting President.  It was kind of contentious back then so they didn't even bother debating the "title" of Vice President to the outrage of Adams, lol.

 

So even though Congress settle on Mr. President, making it in essence "Mr. President" Obama and not "President" Obama (I hope that appeases you somewhat, lol) according to our first Congressmen, technically speaking it still goes against our Constitution of providing him even with this "title" since after all we are now calling it a title which our Constitution prohibits, instead of simply having it a way of addressing someone holding the office.  So let's not call it a title, but a way to address a person who holds the current office.  It would seem as if once again somewhere along the way we are chipping away at the Constitution even in this regard, lol.  This debates been going on since our very first President, so I suppose it will continue to rage on to the fury of some who like the idea of titles like they use for royalty.  Just my dissent on this issue, and for the record I'm neither right or left.

 

I agree with some issues of the current administration while also dissagreeing with several other points, just like I did with the Bush administration and the Clinton administration and so on.  Sigh I know I didn't use the titles again, but for real do we address it when referring to even an administration in this regard.  See how silly this has become, lol.  Again, no slight meant when discussing it in this context, lol, just in case you thought I was.  My main point here is let's not get caught up with so called slight just because a person has one leaning or another.  When I feel it is appropriate I will address a siting President as Mr. President; otherwise, I will simply mention them in casual terms just like I do with other people in my life, who by the way since I know them personally have more respect for.  That's just how life is.  If you say you respect a sitting President even more so than your own wife, husband, parents, and others closest to you, I would say that is being a bit over the top.  I have more respect for those I know on a personal level because you can only make such a judgement with someone you truly know.