Boss Greer:
"I'm not going to vote for McCain if BO loses the nomination for the same reasons I will not vote for him if HRC loses the nomination."
Still Claiming to be a Republican, Knot?
I don't know what party, if any, you would characterize yourself as being a "member" of, but if a member of an organized party, did you have to pledge somewhere to support whatever candidate your party puts forth, nio matter what they represent? In my opinion and in the opinion of quite a few Republicans, the Republican party has shidted away from many Republican values.
They can claim I am less of a Republican at the same time I calim they are less Republican, I don't have any problems saying I am a moderate Republican and I would guess "they" (members of or supporters of the NeoCon philosophy) would have no problems defining themselves as more "conservative" even if the are using a political definition of the word, as opposed to what the word defines in terms of moderation. Just as you accuse me of not being what I claim to be, the same can be applied to the NeoCon branch of the Republican Party when one reads the definition of "conservative". A "recession" has a technical definition as do terms like "peak oil". For various reasons there are different people out there making their own definitions of terms confusing or obscuring what might otherwise be a universal definition. They may be doing this because they have a personal agenda that works better if their definition of the term works better for their agenda than what many or most accept as the definition. This could be said of anyone trying to define a term to suggest they or what they support epitomizes that term more than others who use it.
I'm not going to try to claim I am more of a Republican than NeoCons, I will say that I have a different point of view about Republicanism than what has come to be dubbed a NeoCon outlook. Whether that outlook or my own and those that share my view epitomize being a Republican, I wou;dn't presume to say. I suppose someone out there might have put together a checklist of criteria for what makes a model Republican that they could run all "Republicans" through to test their authenticity, but as far as I know, there are Republicans that cover a spectrum of views, just as I suppose there are Democrats who cover a spectrum of views.
Who I vote for can in your mind and others define my party status, in the mind of others who I vote for or do not vote for may suggest that in my view the candidate that fits closer to my viewpoint of values is either not running under a Repuboican ticket or is closer to someone who is running under another ticket.
In terms of priority, the health of the entire world comes first. Without that, we're all dead. Because I live in the United States, having been born here or not, the health of my nation is important. Without that, all who are Americans struggle and must make choices about staying or moving on, just as the large portion of American's ancestors did when they decided to move on from their own nations to come to America. When it comes to the health of my nation, I have certain feelings about what might be good ways to ensure it and sustain it. Conservation and moderation (being conservative) in my mind is a large part of that. My opinion on what that defines and who is joining me in those views based on their actions shifts from time to time. "Moderation" (being conservative) can run through and apply to many things, not just "entitlements", but defense spending and foreign policies.
How any of the issues and a need for action line up in terms of keeping our nation healthy in a sustainable manner adds another layer to simply qualifying something as conservative or not and being for or against it because this group of "conservatives" or that group of "conservatives" planted a claim flag in it and dubbed it conservative.
In times of elections everyone is running around trying to characterize themselves or someone else as "something" to be agreed with or "something" to be opposed, be it a radical or ultra to try to draw support away from someone or a group as being fringe or fanatical or to try to portray one's self as the most attractive to the largest universal majority with adjectives that oppose the "extreme".
As far as I can tell there has never been an ideal candidate all around and we all have to use those little computers in our heads to sort through all our personal criteria to come up with the one that fits closest to all that criteria in a positive way.
We can argue that OUR way is the ideal way and thus demand, command, push, cajole, urge, or force others to follow our "obviously" "intelligent" choice. In the end some of us will vote because someone else is voting for that person, because that person has claimed a political affiliation or because despite and in spite of all the demands, commands, pushing, cajoling, etc. of others, despite and in spite of all the calls to be "loyal" to a political party, some people are going to choose the candidate that fits all their personal values and criteria the best, not completely, but better than all the other available choices, at least in their own personal opinions.
Some may say I am better suited to label myself as an independent and that could be true. I may one day do that, but for now, I believe in conservatism, but not in the sense of the political use of the word to portray someone as an extreme fanatic in one direction. Ultra-conservative seems an oxymoron with regard to the definition of the word conservative with regard to moderation. Is it truly possible for one to be too moderate? Somehow I don't believe moderation is not what those who characterize "ultra" or "extreme" conservatism as have in mind. The same applies to liberalism. Being liberal in the base definition of the word describes someone who acutually demonstrates what are considered highly praised virtues in the Christian ethic, but somehow those who characterize someone in the political sense as being ultra liberal or just plain liberal, has in mind.
I see the base definitions of both conseravtive and liberal, not the political uses of the words, as describing some valuable attributes based on the thought that so much of the universe seems to work best when in balance, than when out of balance. My heart needs to pump in harmony or I am in trouble, my automobile engine needs to work in harmony or it will tear itself apart, my tires have to be balanced, my body chemistry needs to be kept in balance, the U.S. system of government aimed at maintaining checks and balances.
As social animals we function best in a cooperative manner sharing our talents and labors. One has an affinity for engineering, one has an affinity for growing food, etc. We trade amongst us. The other side (balance) of that are the things we don't want to share with others. We don't want to share things with them that are unwanted by us, thus a balance is required on all fronts meaning some cooperation. We have to give as well as take and that means looking for solutions everyone can live with. One does not have to give up all, but some and realize all are doing the same. That provides for the health of us all. As populations grow space narrows between the proclivities and interests of groups. Whereas those who like their stogies used to be able to smoke them where no one else could be bothered by them, population growth means we're all a lot closer in proximity someone's smoke no longer simply wafts off into outer space somewhere never to be seen again, we have found it merely shifts position from those who don't mind it to places where people who do mind it reside. Thus is the discovery of pollution and how out of sight no longer means out of mind. While we may share good things intentionally, we also share bad things unintentionally, involuntarily or without a care about who might dislike what we share with them in the same way we might dislike what others share with us, by virtue of forcing it upon us or not caring whether the harmful waste or by-products of their activities end up in our backyard unsolicited.
Define my party affiliation by the political party label of the person I end up voting for or define me by the principles and values I believe in and what party they may best fit into.
Conservative generally has been described as a Republican property or trait. How one defines "conservative" depends on whether one adheres to a particular definition of the word as it describes moderation, preservation, conservation or uses the term in the political sense which is really defined anyway someone wants to define themselves or someone else depending on whether they want to characterize them as bad or good through word association, not necessarily through definition of the word. In addition how and what one applies a conservative act to offers a variety of pros and cons depending upon what side of such an action one sits on.
One can act to conserve and preserve all their wealth by exploiting something or others who because of that exploitation will not see their own "wealth" or lifestyles conserved or preserved, then it becomes a question of which party is more deserving of having their way of life or possesion's preserved or conserved.
One might define subjective conservatives as those who would place their own short term conservation above a universal long term conservation.
If we don't conserve or preserve the things that sustain us on earth, we won't survive, if we don't conserve or preserve those things that sustain us locally we won't survive locally, but we have a choice of moving to where we might be able to preserve ourselves on a local basis. Destroy the earth and we have no other choices. My thought is that we perhaps need to recognize the need to conserve the larger sphere as much as we recognize a need to conserve a much smaller sphere. Yes, wouldn't it be good to have all the seafood in the world to myself and not worry about whether anyone else gets any or whether seafood supplies are preserved or conserved beyond what I need, but we are all interconnected and I believe we need to look at and include a much wider picture with regard to what we go about conserving or preseving before we brush aside all else in the interest of preserving and conserving what suits our desires alone with no consideration or care about how that might affect anyone else or the rest of the world or ultimately might come back and affect me in a negative way.
Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican and by no means a perfect person, happened to see the value in conserving and preserving some things that current Republican philosophy would just as soon mow down in the interest of "preserving" and "conserving" something else which could be argued might be a much shorter term preservation or conservation. Meaning, do we sacrifice the conservation and preservation of something that would be reshaped by natural causes for the conservation of preserving and conserving a lifestyle in the short term?
In short, in the balance, does the short duration of a pleasurable orgasm override any concern that the person we would be having sex with has AIDS or do we forego our immediate need for short term pleasure and defer it to a time and situation that also offered less risk of cutting our lives short in the interest of achieving a 30 second moment of pleasurable satisfaction?
Obviously there are differences of opinion on that. The concern many have is not so much that an individual makes that choice for themselves, like drinking and getting behind a wheel. If the person is alone and there is a guarantee that no one else is going to be on the same road they are between where they leave and their destination, then the risk is an individual one and the only one who loses the most is the individual who has made that choice. The concern is the reality that people who make those choices for themselves do not only involve themselves in the risk they are taking for themselves, they involve others who may not make the choice to risk an irreversable or irretrieveable act.
All living things, as far as I know, have a built in mechanism for procreation. Most living things also have mechanisms designed to maximize their survival. Because most do not have the capacity to ratioanlize, there is no capacity to say hey, we're headed toward a situation where there are too many mouths to feed and not enough feed, can we divert away from the disaster that is likely to create? Deer populations that have no natural checks to those populations will eat themselves out of house and home and many will end up starving as a result. Do they have the capacity to communitcate and say we need to cut back on our numbers or is their fate created by their natural instinct sans an ability to step back and assess where they are headed?
Discuss parts or all of the discussion if you like Boss or if you prefer you can discuss the whether you think the post is a good one or bad one based on something other than its content or on it's content.
Have a good weekend Boss.
